(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and'Steamship Clerks,
 ( Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employes
 PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
 (Southern Railway Company

                STAMM, T OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood (GL-9530) that:


The names of two (2) former clerical employees of the Carrier's Eastern Division, who were subsequently hired by the Carrier's Security and Special Services Department as Patrolmen, were being improperly retained on Division Seniority Rosters.

 Because of this impropriety, the Carrier shall now be required to remove their names from the respective Seniority Roster.

 OPINION OF BOARD: Since the filing of the claim one of the claimants, D. A.
 Phillips, died and the question of his seniority is moot.
 Accordingly this opinion will deal only with the status of the other claimant,
 D. L. Settle.

 The issue in this case is whether an employee who held seniority under the Organization's agreement may retain such seniority after taking a position in Carrier's Police and Special Services Department.

 Settle, with seniority date December 28, 1973, was a yard clerk covered by the Employees' agreement. On October 9, 1978, he was promoted to Carrier's Police and Special Services Department. After his promotion Settle's name was nevertheless retained on the seniority roster for the district in which he formerly worked as yard clerk. The Employees contend that such retention on the seniority roster violates Rule B-5 of t
        Rule B-5 Promotion to official or excepted positions.


        "(a) Employees covered by this agreement who have heretofore been promoted to and now occupy official or excepted pw:sitions with the Carrier, or positions with the Organization, occupying their entire time, and employees who may hereafter be promoted to any such positions either with the Carrier or the Organizations shall retain all their rights and continue to accumulate seniority in the districts from which promoted. When official or excepted positions are filled by other than employees holding seniority under the respective rules of this agreement, no seniority shall be established by such agreement to positions covered by the scope of this agreement.

            Award Number 24506 Page 2

                      Docket Number CL-24389


At the heart of this dispute is the question as to whether Settle's promotion was to an "official or excepted position." The Carrier asserts that Settle was promoted to "Special Agent", an official or excepted position, and consequently he continued to accumulate seniority in the district from which he was promoted. The Employees argue that Settle was promoted to the job of "Patrolman" which is not encompassed within official or excepted positions.

 It must be noted at the outset that the Employees' contention that Settle was promoted to "Patrolman" first appears in its ex parte submission. All correspondence between the parties clearly identify the position as that of "Special Agent". While the labelling of a position as "Patrolman" creates a suspicion that it is not an official position, it is not conclusive proof. Avard 13242 (Dorsey). indeed the record is barren of any evidence as to the duties of a patrolmen which might distinguish them from those of a special agent. In this regard the Employees failed to carry the burden of establishing facts and evidence su
A careful. review of the awards cited by the Employees show that it is not permissible, unless the agreement so provides, to allow an employee to hold seniority in two different crafts or class of employees covered by different agreements at the 6261 (Wenke). We have no quarrel with such an interpretation of the law, but there is no showing in this record that Settle, in fact, held seniority on two different roster simultaneously.

 It is well settled that issues and contentions not raised on the property may not be considered de novo by this Board at the appellate level. Awards 22598 (Scearce); 22199-Roukis; 22831- Scheinman and others.

        For the reasons stated above we shall deny the claim.


        FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, 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 Employer within the waning 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 RAILROAD ADJUS24ENT BOARD

                                By Order of Third Division


ATTEST:

            ~cY45,~ Dever - Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 30th day of August 1983.