STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen on the Kansas City Southern Railway Company that:
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: This dispute arose because of the request of duly elected Representative of Local 185, General Chairman L. A. Gandy for preservation of his seniority under Rule 59 of the current Agreement while serving as General Chairman of Local 185 on a compensated basis; (Brotherhood's Exhibit No. 1) and Carrier's refusal to allow such request. (Brotherhood's Exhibit No. 2.)
L. A. Gandy, while serving as General Chairman of Local 185, also worked as a signalman for the Carrier for several years. This arrangement became unsatisfactory with the Employes of Local 185 because it is possible for the Carrier to exert certain pressure upon an Employe working in such dual capacity as signalman for a Carrier and duly elected Representative of that Carrier's Signal Employes, as is evidenced by General Chairman Gandy's statement set out in Brotherhood's Exhibit No. 14.
The members of Local 185 decided the members' interest could be better served if the Representative of the Employes was not actually employed by the Carrier and offered partial compensation to their General Chairman if he would represent them without working for the Carrier as a Signalman.
General Chairman Gandy accepted and wrote the Carrier for preservation of his seniority under Rule 59 of the current Agreement, which request was denied by the Carrier in letters between the General Chairman and the Carrier reproduced and identified as Brotherhood's Exhibit Nos. 3 through 18.
This dispute was handled on the property in the usual and proper manner up to and including the highest officer of the Carrier designated to handle such disputes, without obtainine a oatisfactory settlement.
Additional correspondence attached as Carrier's Exhibits A through D, was exchanged by the parties subsequent to letter confirming conference on the property.
OPINION OF BOARD: The record shows that for several years prior to January, 1967, the Claimant herein, L. A. Gandy, while serving as General Chairman of the Organization also worked as signalman for the Carrier. On January 18, 1967, he addressed the following letter to the Carrier's Chief Engineer:
Rule 58 of the governing agreement provides that an employe who engages in other employment will be considered out of service unless special arrangements are made with the Carrier. Since we have a shortage of signalmen, it will not be feasible to grant you permission to engage in other employment and your request therefor is respectfully declined.
Employes now filling, or hereafter promoted to official positions with the Railroad Company or the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen of America, or transferred to positions in the Signal or Telegraph Department, not covered by this agreement, and who have established seniority under this agreement, shall retain all their rights and continue to accumulate seniority in the seniority district from which promoted. They may exercise displacement rights as provided in this agreement in the event their positions are abolished or they are demoted."
Employes given leave of absence in writing by proper authority of the Railway, limited except in cases of physical disability to six (6) months in any twelve month period, will retain their seniority rights. Employes failing to return to duty on or before the expiration of a leave of absence will lose their seniority rights, unless an extension has been obtained in writing. Employes on leave of absence not due to physical disability for more than six months in any twelve month period will lose all seniority rights. An employe absent on leave who engages in other employment will be considered out of service, unless special arrangements shall have been made with the official granting the leave of absence and copy furnished General Chairman.
Employes on leave of absence who desire to return before expiration of leave will be permitted to do so on three (3) days' written notice to the proper officer."
Referring to my letter of January 18, 1967 and to our several conversations of near the same date relating to my acceptance of a position as paid General Chairman of Local 185 of the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen and my request that the provisions of Rule 59 of the current Agreement between the Kansas City Southern Railway Company and the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen be placed in effect as of January 27, 1967.
Your request was not granted, as evidenced by my letter of January 20, 1967. I do not understand that this position of General Chairman is properly considered a full time position, because you have been actively employed as a signalman for several years and at the same time you have served as General Chairman.
In your telephone conversation with my office, you admitted that you would enter the employment of the Post Office Department at Mena, Arkansas, and that the predominance of your service would be with the Post Office Department.
Rule 58 clearly provides that an employe absent on leave who engages in other employment will be considered out of service unless special arrangements shall have been made. No such arrangements were made, and when you engaged in outside employment on January 28, 1967, you voluntarily terminated your employment relation with these Companies.
Thereafter the Claimant handled the matter as a grievance with the Vice President-Personnel of the Carrier, claiming that his seniority rights should be restored, effective January 27, 1967, which is the claim before the Board.
The Petitioner contends that Rule 59 is controlling in the dispute and the Carrier contends that it properly applied the provisions of Rule 58.
It is well established that the Board must accept the rules as it finds them. We have no power to alter, amend or add to the terms the parties agreed upon. While under Rule 59 an employe's seniority is preserved when promoted to official positions with the Railroad Company or the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen of America, its terms cannot be construed to preserve the seniority of an employe who accepts employment with some other employer, in the present case the Post Office Department. Rule 58 is specific in providing that:
In our present case no "special arrangements" were made. As heretofore indicated, there is no dispute that subsequent to January 27, 1967, Claimant was employed by the Post Office Department. Based on the record and the rules we cannot find that the Carrier acted improperly in determining that Claimant voluntarily terminated his employment relationship. The claim must, therefore, be denied.
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