Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 27331
 THIRD DIVISION Docket No. MW-26497
 88-3-85-3-236
 The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Martin F. Scheinman when award was rendered.

 (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 afford Mr. G. Davis the proper seniority dates on the March 1, 1983 Conrail New Jersey Division Seniority Rosters (System Docket CR-591).

 (2) As a consequence of the aforesaid violation, Mr. G. Davis shall be afforded a seniority date of April 14, 1969 in the Trackman, Truck Driver and Crane Operator classes on the New Jersey Division Seniority Roster."

 FINDINGS:

 The Third Division of the Adjustment Board upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that:

 The carrier or carriers and the employe or employes involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 1934.

 This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.

The relevant facts of this case are not in dispute. Claimant was employed during the period 1950-1972 by the Central Railroad of New Jersey (CNJ), the Lehigh Valley Railroad (LV) and the Lehigh and New England Railroad (LSNE) in various capacities. Upon the reorganization of these railroads into the Conrail system, Claimant's seniority date was determined to be his LV date of employment, April 1, 1972, and not his L&NE date of employment, April 14, 1969.

 As a result, the Organization filed this claim. Carrier timely denied it. Thereafter the claim was handled in the usual manner on the property. It is now before this Board for adjudication.

 The Organization contends that L6 NE and LV employees were entitled to be dovetailed into Conrail Seniority Rosters in accordance with their earliest L&NE or LV seniority dates. While it acknowledges that Claimant's name was not on the LSNE Seniority Roster prepared on December 2, 1974, it argues that this roster was never intended to be a complete listing of all employees holding L&NE seniority. employees actively working on the L&NE at that time.
 Form 1 Award No. 27331
 Page 2 Docket No. MW-26497
 88-3-85-3-236

 In the alternative, the Organization maintains that the absence of Claimant's name from that roster was merely an error of omission. Therefore, it insists, in either case Claimant is entitled to seniority for his L6 NE service. Thus, it asks that the claim be sustained.

 After reviewing the record evidence, this Board is convinced that the claim must fail. Upon receipt of a $1,200 stipend, Claimant, as well as other employees gave up, in essence, all seniority rights which existed prior to April 1, 1972. Under these circumstances, Claimant's employment prior to that date as a L&NE employee cannot be computed on the Conrail Seniority Roster.

 Moreover, this issue was previously addressed in a final and binding arbitration Award rendered on May 21, 1981. In that case, the Board of Adjustment said that Brotherh had a seniority and service date "as new employees with seniority dates of April 1, 1972" or later (emphasis in the original). Thus, there can be no doubt that consistent with the terms of that Award, Claimant's seniority date was properly listed on Conrail's Seniority Roster. Therefore, and for the foregoing reasons, the claim is rejected.




                          By Order of Third Division


Attest: ,
        ancy J.~ PO- Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 30th day of August 1988.