"When force is reduced or positions abolished an employee, if not the junior employee of the seniority class, will have the right only to displace a junior employee in the same seniority class from among the three (3) employees with the least seniority rights in such class on either of the supervisor's districts in maintenance and in the construction district, except as provided in Rule 32, and he must exercise such rights of dispacement in order to retain seniority rights." (Emphasis added.)

The rule is too clear and positive in its stipulations to permit of the interpretation as contended by the organization. What the organization wants the Board to do is to rewrite the rule to fit its contention, which the Board cannot do. It interprets rules and agreements-it does not revise them.

OPINION OF BOARD: The Carrier maintains two seniority districts. One covers all construction and line-of-road maintenance forces and the other all signal shop employes. On March 5, 1953, L. S. Smith established seniority as a signal helper in the Shop Seniority District in one of the Carrier's three signal shops, at Athens, Georgia. On March 24, 1953, he was assigned a position in the line-of-road seniority district. Smith maintained seniority in both districts. On January 24, 1955 his line of road helper's position was adolished and he sought to displace a junior signal helper in the Shop Seniority District, giving rise to the instant dispute. He subsequently displaced a junior signal helper on the line-of-road seniority district, and the parties now seek an interpretation of the pertinent rules.

The Organization contends that Smith maintained seniority in both districts and on being displaced from his job in one district, had the right to bump into a junior job on the other district. It argues that since the agreement makes no specific provision for displacement of signal shop employes, they must be construed to be maintenance employes as that term is used in Rule 30 and that bumping rights are available for the jobs of the three junior employes regardless of in which seniority district they work. The fact that Rule 27 establishes a separate seniority district for signal shops is valid for filling of vacancies, promotions, and the like, the Organization avers, but not for reductions and it makes reference to the special protection concerning vacancies in signal shops afforded by Rule 43.

The Carrier emphasizes that Rule 27 establishes two separate seniority districts; and that the language of Rule 30 limits its coverage to displacement within the line of road maintenance and construction district. Accordingly Smith had the right to displace one of the three junior employes in that district. There is nothing in the Agreement giving him the right to displace a junior employee in the other district or to bump into one of three junior positions in any combination of these two seniority districts. Only when he has exhausted the bumping opportunities in the district where he was displaced could he then bump into the other seniority district.

In dispute is the right of a displaced employe having seniority in the two districts established by Rule 27 to bump into the district other than the one in which his position was abolished.

It is clear from reading Rule 27 that that provision recognizes that signal shops are to have a separate seniority district. But that differentiation does not relate to procedures for implementing the seniority which it recog-

nizes. Such procedures are set forth in the various provisions following Rule 27.

In Rule 43 separate arrangements are set forth for advertising new positions and vacancies in the signal shop. But elsewhere there is no evidence that employes working in signal shop, or with seniority in signal shop working elsewhere must be treated separately. The language of these rules would appear equally applicable to employes possessing seniority in either or both seniority districts. Thus employes with seniority in both districts are clearly dealt with in the same manner under the other seniority provisions of the agreement. Rules 32 and 42 for instance make reference to displacement procedures of Rule 30 and require that employes, including shop employes, must follow the procedures of that disputed rule. It is argued by the Carrier that Rule 30 is limited in application to employes in the seniority district composed of construction and line-of-road maintenance forces, but other rules require all employes to follow its provisions. The Carrier acknowledges that shop employes are not mentioned in Rule 30 but it has had to read their inclusion into Rule 30 to have any procedure which would cover displacement therein. Its concepts are followed in cases of reduction in signal shops and when an employe with seniority both in line-of-road maintenance and shops has exhausted his bumping rights in the former, and, under its theory, acquires rights in the latter.

Thus we must conclude that the parties have interpreted the provisions of Rule 30 to be equally applicable to maintenance and construction as well as shop seniority districts. This being the case, it therefore follows that the claimant in this case should have been given an opportunity to bump into the three junior positions in class with recognition of his seniority in both districts. We find nothing in the language of Rule 30 which limits him to his displacement opportunities, or which requires him to exhaust displacement rights in one seniority district before exercising them in the other.

If claimant had protected seniority in both districts he had the right to bump a junior employe regardless of in which district he was working. This is consonant with the Carrier's recognition of his right to bump into the district where he had formerly worked and still maintained seniority. There has been nothing cited by the parties to have us believe that he loses seniority in one district when he goes to work in the other. This being the case he should be permitted to return to a position in his former district when his job in the other is abolished. It would be unreasonable to contend that once displaced he can only get into a junior position in which he still has seniority, because it is in another district only by bidding for a vacancy. That would appears contrary to the whole concept of displacement on the basis of job seniority.

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 and the Employes involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and Employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934;

That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and

That the Agreement was violated.

AWARD