THIRD DIVISION
(Supplemental )
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: The claimant was employed as a regularly assigned system machine operator in the T&S Gang and obtained his position by bidding on same when it was bulletined. He has established and holds seniority rights as a system machine operator in sub-department H-2 as of January 4, 1962.
On December 21, 1962, the claimant was displaced from his position in the T&S Gang by System Machine Operator W. E. Hubbard who holds seniority rights in sub-department H-2 as of January 4, 1962.
Claim was timely and properly presented and handled at all stages of appeal up to and including the Carrier's highest appellate officer.
The Agreement in effect between the two parties to this dispute dated September 1, 1949, together with supplements, amendments and interpretations thereto, is by reference made a part of this Statement of Facts.
POSITION OF EMPLOYES: The claimant has established and holds seniority rights in sub-departments H-1 and H-2 in accordance with the provisions of Rules 3(a) and (b), which read:
Also see numerous other awards, including Third Division Awards Nos. 8172, 7964, 7908, 7861, 7584, 7226, 7200, 7199, 6964, 6885, 6844, 6824, 6748, 6225, 5941, 2676, and others. Also see Second Division Awards Nos. 2938, 2580, 2569, 2545, 2544, 2042, 1996, and others-all of which clearly state that the burden is on the claimant party to prove an alleged violation of the agreement. To date, the Brotherhood has produced no evidence of any violation.
OPINION OF BOARD: The Agreement is silent as to the order in which employes, having the same seniority date, will rank.
In those instances where two or more employes had the same seniority date, Carrier, historically, has placed their names on the appropriate seniority list in alphabetical order and they were ranked, seniority-wise, accordingly. 13844-22 191
Employes G. H. Haynes, w. E. Hubbard and J. M. Pike (Claimant) were each promoted to positions of System Machine Operators in Sub-department H-2 on January 4, 1962. On the seniority roster posted on July 1, 1962, they were shown to have the same seniority date, their names appeared in alphabetical order and they were ranked in that order -Haynes (47), Hubbard (48) and Claimant Pike (49).
On December 21, 1962, Claimant was displaced by Hubbard. The Claim is that since Hubbard and Pike had the same seniority date, Claimant was not junior to Hubbard and, therefore, Hubbard had no contractual right to displace Claimant.
The Organization has advanced a number of arguments addressed to what it considers would be a more equitable way than alphabetical listing to vest seniority ranking. While the arguments may have merit in equity they find no support in the Agreement. Were we, by award, to endorse such proposals we would write into the Agreement a new rule-an action which all will agree is beyond the powers of the Board.
Recognizing that stabilization of employe seniority is of the utmost importance both to the employes and to the Carrier, it is evident that, in the absence of prescription in the Agreement, some method had to be employed to rank employes having the same seniority date. Under the Rules of the Agreement, if the Organization or an employe is of the opinion that the method employed is destructive of seniority rights, the time to raise issue is within 60 days of the posting of the seniority roster as provided in Rule 4(b); and, further, if issue is not raised within the prescribed time limitations the seniority rank appearing on the roster stands firm for the balance of the period during which the roster is current. Thus is effected contractual vesting of fixed seniority rights of value to both employes and Carrier. 13844-23 192
In the instant case neither Claimant nor the Organization exercised, timely, the right to challenge, as incorrect, the Claimant's seniority rank as listed on the July 1, 1962, seniority roster. That roster, at the time of Claimant's displacement, was current and not subject to attack. On that roster the employe, who displaced Claimant while it was current, ranked seniority-wise, thereon, before Claimant. We find, therefore that Claimant's displacement by Hubbard on December 21, 1962, did not violate Claimant's seniority rights. We will deny the Claim.
FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, 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