(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:

 (1) The Carrier violated the Agreement when it failed and refused to permit Plumber-Mechanic J. Tatinger to displace Carpenter Foreman R. Farnesi, subsequent to the abolishment of his position (System File BB-2-84).

 (2) The claimant shall be allowed the difference in pay between that of a carpenter and that of a carpenter foreman for each hour junior employe R. Farnesi worked said position.

 (3) The claimant shall be allowed a seniority date as carpenter foreman as of the date he was not allowed to displace the junior employe (March 26, 1984)."

 OPINION OF BOARD: The facts of this case are identical to those of Award 26353
 and will not be reiterated here. A11 discussion of facts
 of this case include those of Award 26353 by reference. When the Carrier bul
 letined the Carpenter position on March 12, 1984, (Notice No. 2) it was bid on
 by Claimant who had established seniority as a Carpenter on August 25, 1947,
 albeit he held the actual position of Plumber Mechanic at the time the new '
 Carpenter position had been bulletined in March of 1984. Claimant held Plum
 ber Mechanic seniority since March 10, 1980, as noted in Award 26353, as well
 as seniority as Painter Foreman since April 1, 1968. When Claimant bid on the
 Carpenter position in March of 1984, when his own position of Plumber Mechanic
 was being abolished, he did so in the following language:



                        Docket Number MW-26542


          It will be noted here that I am the senior employee, Rank ail, of all the employees holding seniority within the Bridge and Building Department. Thereover, I have previously and on numerous oc of Carpenter Foreman during the absence of the incumbent foreman, and hold seniority as Painter Foreman.


          If for some unforseen (sic) and unbeknown reason the Carrier does not assign me to the above cited position, I therefore enter any bid for the position of Carpenter as advertised in Bulletin Notice Number 2, dated March 12, 1984, in compliance with Rule 13.


          It is my preference to be assigned to the Carpenter Foreman position."


Claimant was subsequently assigned to the position of Carpenter. After this a Claim was filed which alleged that the Carrier was in violation of the Agreement because it failed t January 1, 1983.

 A study of the record shows that Claimant had never established seniority as Carpenter Foreman, although he had established seniority in other classifications as noted above. It was, in fact, his seniority in the Carpenter classification, for Carpenter position in March of 1984 over those of two fellow workers who were also Carpenters as well as the Claimants in Third Division Award 26353. It is axiomatic that an employee cannot claim seniority rights in a job classification if seniority has ne
        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 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.

                        Award Number 26355 Page 3

                      Docket Number MW-26542

                      A W A R D


        Claim denied.


                          NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                          By Order of Third Division


Attest.
        Nancy J. - .Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 8th day of June 1987.