PARTIES DISPUTE: Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen



STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood
of Railroad Signalmen on the Chicago and North
Western Transportation Company:

(a) On or about November 21, 1972 the Carrier violated the current Signalmen's Agreement, particularly the 5th paragraph of Rule 1'/ when it would not place Mr. A. E. Nenn, Sig. Mtnr. at Pt. Washington, Wis. on the permanent position of Ldr. Sig. Mtnr. at Appleton, Wis. and allow him to work the temporary position of Sig. Mtnr. at Oshkosh, Wis., pending return of J. A. Meyer.

(b) The Carrier now be required to place Mr. Nenn per his request as stated in his letter of Sep to the position as stated in (a) above.

(c) The Carrier be required to compensate and/or reimburse Mr. Nean for all compensation he may have lost by this violation. fcarrier s File: 79-13-16)

OPINION OF BOARD: This dispute relates to whether or not an employe
may exercise several options, seriatim, upon being
displaced, under two different Rules. The Rules are:




















Petitioner argues that Claimant, having taken action under the shorter option (Rule 36 (c)) may not be denied the right to subsequently exercise the 14 day option. It is urged that Carrier's position would result in giving a senior man only three days in which to make a displacement, whereas a Junior man










It might be construed that the Organization is saying that his one choice was exercised under both rules. However, in subsequent argument Petitioner insists that Claimant has the right to make three different choices, as indicated in the Statement of Claim.

We cannot accept the logic of Claimant. Although it is true that he had to make a choice under either Rule, both being applicable to the situation, he could not make three choices. After he opted for the Port Washington position, he was no longer in a displaced posture and able to exercise any further option. Additionally, it seems evident that he did exercise the option contained in the Note to Rule 17, supra, and certainly had no basis for then attempting to use the same Rule's fourteen day provision. Even if, as Petitioner contends, his choice was made pursuant to Rule 36 (c), there is no basis whatever for a second and third option to be exercised since he was no longer being displaced. He must be confined to one rule application. The Claim must be denied.





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 Hoard has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and










ATTEST: A1. / --/~~IJ


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 27th day of February 1976.