PARTIES TO DISPUTE:





STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the American Train Dispatchers Association that:

(a) The Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company (hereinafter referred to as "the Carrier"), violated the Schedule Agreement between the Carrier and its train dispatchers effective November 1, 1969, Article IV(a) thereof in particular, when it added the names and seniority standing of R. A. McDonald and J. Williams to the Cumberland Valley Division Train Dispatchers' seniority roster dated January 1, 1970.



EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: There is an Agreement in effect between the parties, copy of which is on file with this Board, and the same is incorporated into this Submission as a part thereof as though fully set out.

For the ready reference of the Board, Articles I(a), IV(a), IV(b), and IV(i), which are particularly pertinent to this dispute, are quoted here in full:

"ARTICLE I

SCOPE - DEFINITIONS

CLASSIFICATIONS




The term `train dispatcher' as hereinafter used, shall include night chief, assistant chief, trick, relief and extra train dispatchers. It is agreed that one (1) chief dispatcher in each dispatching office shall be excepted from the provisions of this agreement.














The protest was handled on the property in .strict accord with agreement provisions and the handling is shown by carrier's exhibits "A" through "M".



OPINION OP BOARD: The contention of the Petitioner is that the Carrier was in error when it added the names and seniority standing of R. A. McDonald and J. Williams to the Train Dispatchers' seniority roster dated .January 1, 1970.

Article IV (a) of the applicable Agreement which became effectixe November 1, 1909, reads in part:





The Agreement in effect prior to November 1, 1969 (effective April 16, 1948 amended December 1, 1957), provided in part:


18703 19

months period preceding Deecmuei 1, 1907, except this stall not operate to give any extra man seniotity over a dispatcher with seniority- dating prior to December 1, 1957. When that would occur, the man establishing seniority will be given dating just under the dispatcher bolding seniority prior to December I, 1957.


Qualified train dispatchers not having established seniority will let used in the order of their initial work as train dispatcher, when they are available."


The individuals named in the Statement of Claim were not included on the seniority roster in effect immediately prior to the Agreement of November 1, 1969. They were included on the January 1, 1970 seniority roster with datings of August 7, 1959 and June 24, 1964, respectively, one being shown as Chief Train Dispatcher and the other as Assistant Trainmaster, neither of which positions is included e·ithin the term "train dispatcher" under the Scope Rule of the Agreement.


It is well settled that seniority exists by virtue of agreement between employes and employer. (Award 16545.) It is also well settled that the Board must apple- Agreement rules as written, and that the Board is not free to consider the equities of the situation.


P,ased upon our study of the entire record in the dispute, we find that the individuals named in the Statement of Claim had not established seniority under the Agreement in effect prior to November 1, 1969, and that they were not "train dispatchers" as defined in the Agreement when the Agreement of November 1, 1969 became effective, and that the inclusion of their names on the January 1, 1970 seniority roster was not authorized by any cited rule of the Agreement.


FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, noon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:



That the Carrier and the Employes involved in this dispute are respec;.ively 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









Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 24th day of September 1971,
Keenan Printing Go., Chicago, Ill. printed in U.S.A.
18703 20