(AmeriEfaa Train Dispatchers Association PARTIES TO DISPD7iF:

STATaNT OF CLAIM: "Claim of the At11eilaan Train Dispatchers Association that:

 (a) The Norfolk and Western RalsWay Ommpany (hereinafter referred to as 'the Carrier'),, violated the cmtr%,lisg VIRGINIAN Railway Train Dis patchers schedule agreemelitp Articles 1(s),, 1(b) 1., 4(d), 5(a) of and sup plement no. 6 to said agreement in pertiCUlaxp whew affective February 1, 1978 it unilaterally assigned the position OT Relief/Night Chief Train Dis patcher in its Bluefield$ W. Va. tftin dispatching office to Air. C. G. Hogan, a person not having previously established train dispatcher seniority pursuant to said agreement.

 (b) Because of said vielhtion' the 01arrier shall now compensate the senior qualified ekt&a train dispatcher available, one (1) days' pro rata compensation for each Reliefftight Chief Train Dispatchers shift filled by
 Mr. Hogan until that position is propsrly bulletined, awarded and filled
 under the provisions of the A,greAmentl, beginning with February 4, 1978·
(c) In the event any such claim date referred to above occurs as a sixth and/or seventh consecutive day of 'tPgin dispatchers service for the involved Claimant, the claimed compensation `shall be increased by onehalf pursuant to Article 3
(d) The identity of the respe'&AWe Udfvidual claimants shall be determined by a joint check of the CarrieTqa records."

 OPINION OF BOARD: In this dispute, which 4s a 'oompenion case to
 Award No. 23327 iavolvl.s$ Abe nose Carrier and the saes Organization, the adjudicative question is basically th Carrier violate the Organization's Agreement.-particularly Rules 1(a), 1(b) 1, 4(d), 5(a), and Supplement 6 when it assignedy effective February 1, 1978, the position of Relief/Night Chief Train DiBpatCher in its Bluefield, West Virginia train dispatching office to an employs not covered by the Agreement? Similar to our findings in the aforesaid cases we find that the instant case is properly before us and thus concur with the Organization's position relative to Carrier's procedural objections. However, we agree with Carrier's position on the merits.


The position at issue was one of two non-agreement Chief Dispatcher positions-at Bluefield, West Virginia, which were excluded from Agreement coverage, by letter Agreement, dated July 8, 1976. By the terms of this Agreement, specifically, to wit, Paragraphs 2 and 6 respectively, the parties mutually agreed that the American Train Dispatchers Association (ATDA) represented employes holding Princeton-Deepwater Districts) would be afforded consideration in the filling of vacancies on either of the two current positions of Chief Dispatcher on the Pocahontas Division. It does not extend the Organization's Agreement to these positions. Moreover, Paragraph 6 pointedly states that the Letter Agreement supercedes the rules of existing Agreements which may be in conflict with it. It is not a the Chief Dispatchers' positions, which were explicitly referenced in paragraph 2 and cannot be cons protective aegis of Agreement Rule 1(a). At the time the July 8, 1976 Letter Agreement was written, following the abolition of the Princeton. West Virginia train dispatching offices, the intent of the parties, as evidenced by Paragraphs 2 and 6 of that instrument was to exclude the two Chief Dispatcher positions on the Pocahontas Division from the seniority protection: of the AMA Agreement. We cannot interpret this provision any other way. We must presume that the parties understood the import of the Letter Agreement and that they had the intention which its terms manifested. It is expressed in clear and unambiguous language and we must give it the meaning intended. Upon the record, we find no Agreement violation when the position of Relief/ Night Chief Train Dispatcher at Bluefield was assigned to a non AAA bargaining unit employe.



That the Carrier and the Enployes involved in this dis-_a F ire respectively Carrier and Employes within the meaning of the Railwsy ~:bor 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.

Claim denied.

                                NATIONAL RAILROAD ADuUST!·ENT BOkRL

                                By Order of Third Division


ATTEST: ~r~ ~~
 Executive e Secretary

 Dated at Chicago, Tllinois, this 19th day of June 1981.