(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen
 PARTIES 7C) DISPUTE:
 (Fort Worth and Denver Railway Oompaqy

On behalf of Mr. A. Green, Assistant Sigaalman, for the Signal Foreman's rate of pay commencing position of Signal Foreman, Signal Gang #1." Carrier file: SG-3. General Chairman file: FWD-78-181)

 OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant, who is an Assistant Signalman with a seniority
 date of November 21, 1977 in Class II, contends that
 Carrier violated Rules 23 and 35 of the Signalmen's Agreement when it awarded
 the Class I Foreman's position of Signal Gang No. 1 to W. M. Carter. He
 argues that Mr. Carter did not establish seniority in the Class I category,
 since he was a new employee working under the probationary provisions or
 Rule 23, which rendered his employment temporary during the 60 day period.

 Carrier disputes this interpretative analysis and contends that Mr. Carter, who began work on October 23, 1978 as a Signal Foreman, Class I established seniority as of that date, consistent with the clear language of paragraphs B and D of Rule 20. These provisions are quoted verbatim hereinafter:



                  Docket Amber SG-23165


            Paragraph D provides:


              "An employee will acquire and accumulate seniority in the seniority class in which he starts work and all lower seniority classes."


It argues that Rule 20 D confirms its position, since it stipulates that an employe's seniority tolls at the time he begins work.

 In our review of this case, we concur with Carrier's assessment. Claimant bad not established Class I seniority, despite his longer service with Carrier. The filling of the Class I Foreman's position with Carter did not represent a promotion from the Class II seniority category to Class I. Paragraphs B (supra) and D (Sins) of Rule 20 are specific and unnmbiguous provisions and provide that seniority begins and accumulates at the time an employe's compensation begins in the class in which employed.

 Since Mr. Carter, although a temporary employe, accumulated seniority in Class I, effective October 23, 1978, and Claimant possessed seniority in Class II, it vas not impermissible to award this position, in the absence of a more senior applicant in Class I, to Foreman Carter. Claimant did not have seniority in Class I and this unmistakable finding, given the rules cited herein, judicially requires that we deny this claim.

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


        That the parties waived oral hearing;


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 not violated.


                      A W A R D


        Claim denied.


                              NATIONAL RAILR0AD AWM24M BOAR

                              By Order of Third Division


ATTEST:
                cre


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 27th day of February 1981.