All data submitted in support of the Carrier's position have been heretofore submitted to the Employes or their duly accredited representatives.

The Carriers request ample time and opportunity to reply to any and all allegations contained in Employes' and Organization's submission and pleadings.

Except as herein expressly admitted, the Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad Company and Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad Company of Texas, and each of them, deny each and every, all and singular, the allegations of the Organization and Employes in alleged unadjusted dispute claim or grievance.

For each and all of the foregoing reasons, the Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad Company and Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad Company of Texas, and each of them, respectfully request the Third Division, National Railroad Adjustment Board, deny said claim, and grant said Railroad Companies, and each of them, such other relief to which they may be entitled.

OPINION OF BOARD: The facts are undisputed.

The issue is whether Claimant, a Steel Bridgeman, had a vested contractual seniority right entitling him to promotion to a bulletined vacancy in the position of Steel Bridge Foreman.

The Facts

The Carrier, on its system, had one Steel Bridge Foreman position. The holder of the position retired. The position was bulletined. Among the bidders were Claimant and one J. E. Wolfe, both Steel Bridgemen, with seniority dates of January 20, 1937 and April 30, 1941, respectively. The position was assigned to Wolfe.

Contentions of the Parties

Petitioner contends that Claimant, having more seniority than Wolfe, and being possessed of the ability, should have been assigned to the position; and, that Carrier's failure to do so was in violation of the seniority provisions of the Agreement.

Carrier contends that since neither Claimant or Wolfe had seniority in the classification of B&B Department Foremen the Agreement did not compel it to assign the position on the basis of seniority.

Pertinent Provisions of the Agreement

ARTICLE 3. SENIORITY.

Seniority rights of employes of higher rank than laborers to new positions or vacancies, will be restricted to one Superintendent's district, except that seniority rights of employes in system gangs will extend over the entire system and be confined to their respective classifications . . . ." (Emphasis ours.)

Seniority for Bridge and Building Department employes shall be separated into four (4) groups as follows:

B&B Department Foremen

B&B Department Lead Mechanics

B&B Department Mechanics

B&B Department Helpers"

Resolution of the Issue

It is axiomatic that seniority rights, if any, are prescribed in and derive from the collective bargaining agreement.

In the Agreement before us we note that in Article 3, Rule 1, it is stated that "Employes are entitled to consideration for positions in accordance with their seniority ranking as provided in these rules." (Emphasis ours.) Immediately following, in the first sentence of Rule 2 of Article 3 which is quoted supra, we find a circumscription which confines system gang employes seniority rights as to new positions or vacancies to seniority in "their respective classifications." Then in Rule 20 of the same Article, supra, it is provided that "Seniority for Bridge and Building Department employes shall be separated into four (4) groups. . " Separately listed as one group is "B&B Department Foremen." Reading the Rules together we conclude that no employe holding seniority in one of the other three groups has any contractual priority because of such seniority, to be assigned to a permanent position of Steel Bridge Foremen. Therefore, since Claimant, admittedly, had no seniority in the "B&B Department Foremen" classification, we will deny the claim.

FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, after giving the parties to this dispute due notice of hearing thereon, and upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:

That the Carrier did not violate the Agreement.

AWARD