(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks,

( Freight Handlers, Egress and Station Employee PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
              (Bosomsr and Lake Erie Railroad Company


                SSATHM" OF CLAIat: Claim of the System Comittee of the Brotherhood (aL-8732) that:


        1. The Carrier violated the effective Clarks'

        Agreement on December 21, 1977, when it reftaed to permit Clerks Andrea M. Lohmann and Charlene Flack to exercise their seniority rights over junior employee holding Assistant Machine Operator Positions.


        2. The Carrier shall now compensate Clerks Lohsann and Flack for eight (8) hours' pay each, at the pro rata rate of Assistant Machine Operator Positions, and in addition, any overtime which would have accrued to them, commencing on December 21, 1977, and continuing for each and every day thereafter, five days per week, Monday through Friday, that a like violation exists.


OPINION OF BOARD: Doe to a force reduction effective December 20, 1977 the
 Claimants attempted to exercise displacement rights and bump junior employee who held the positions of Assistant Machine Operator and Relief Machine Operator. The Carrier refused to honor the displacements on the basis that the Claimants did not possess thirty (30) days prior experience on the positions.

 The Organisation asserted that the Carrier's refusal was unwarranted because the requirement of thirty days of prior experience was neither called for by the parties' agreement nom established by the parties as a past practice. The Carrier contended that it was within its managerial prerogative to establish qualifications for displacing employee and, notwithstanding this prerogative, the measure of qualifications applicable to Machine Operators and Assistant machine operators (thirty days experience) had been established and uniformly applied pursuant to a verbal understanding with the Organization.
                    Award Nunber 23241 Page 2

                    Docket Number M-n849


        The relevant applicable Rules provide as follows:


          "Rule 28(a). Seniority rights (seniority,, fitness

          and. ability) of employees to vacancies or

          new positions or to perform work covered

          by this Agreement, shall be governed by

          this Agreement.


              "Rule 28(b). Ehployees covered by this Agreement shall be in line for promotion. Promotions.* assignments and displacements shall be based on seniorityp fitness and ability; fitness and ability being sufficient., seniority shall prevail."


              "Rids 35(a). llployees entitled to advertised positions or those exercising displacement rights shall be allowed thirty (30) working days, with full opportunity, in which to qnalify,p and failingp shall retain all their seniority rightsp may bid on any advertised positions, but shall not displace any regularly assigned employee.


              Employees will be given reasonable cooperation in their efforts to qualify."


It is a principle of contract interpretation that where the agreement is silent or unclear well-established past practice will be considered. Qaastions of inter exception to this principle. Rule 28j, as most seniority rules., does not specify any degree of fitness and ability. Therefore, the question is "have the parties established a local practice concerning employees' rights to displace on Machine Operator and Assistant Macnine Operator positions?" If such practice did exist, and the Carrier adhered to it in denying the displacements., then the claims must be denied. If no practice was established, the claims must be s Rules 28 and 35 to displacement rights based upon their seniority; and the organization's argument that experience is not a prerequisite to the exercise of seniority would have to be sustained.

 However., the record before this Board reveals that the practice of requiring a prior experience period of thirty (30) days has been followed for more than five years where the claimed positions were involved. This practice has been consistent and has been recognized by the Organization
                    Award Number 23241 page 3

                    Docket Number Q.-22849


evidenced by the Organization's efforts to have the practice rescinded.

 The record also reveals that the thirty (30) days prior experience requirement is not unreasonable in view of the high degree of skill demanded by the operation of the complex data processing equipment associated with the positions in question.

 In view of the well-established local practice of requiring thirty (30) days of prior experience on the positions in question and finding that this requirement is reasonable, the claims shall be denied.

        FINDINGS:-The Third Division of the Adjustment Board., upon the whole record and all the evidences finds and holds:


        That the parties waived oral hearing;


That the Carrier and. the Employee involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and Eaployes 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

        fat the Agreement was not violated.


                        A W A R D


        Claims denied.


                          NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT HOARD

                          By Order of Third Division


ATTEST: 4a, ~~I~ Alt
        Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago., Illinois., this 31st day of March 1981.