Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 27712
 THIRD DIVISION Docket No. SG-27021
 89-3-86-3-60
 The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Gil Vernon when award was rendered.

 (Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen PARTIES TO DISPUTE:



(a) Claim that the Carrier violated the Agreement, Article 2, Section 17 Letter of Understanding dated August 12, 1982, signed by G. F. Daniels, Vice President Labor Relations and R. T. Bates, President of the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen.

 When on November 2, 1984, the Carrier utilized Section 4(B) of the May 7, 1976 Implementing Agreement to force myself from my regular awarded position of Signalman in Gang K 112 to the vacant 3rd Trick Trouble Truck Gang K 012 for which no qualified bids were received.

 (b) Carrier should now be required to pay Claimant P. S. Santoro 35-8 hour days account of his actually working this position from November 2 to December 19, 1984, a total of 35 days. Carrier File: NEC-BRS-SD-207"

 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 basis of the claim is the August 12, 1982 Letter of Understanding as it related to Article 2, Section 17. The Letter reads as follows:


Form 1
 Page 2

 The pertinent referenced in standing. It

 Award No. 27712
 Docket No. SG-27021
 89-3-86-3-60

 and Article 2, Section 17 of the Southern District Agreement to read as follows:



Please indicate your concurrence by signing in the space provided below."

 aspect of Article IV-B of the Implementing Agreement, which is the statement of claim, is a July 12, 1984 Letter of Understates:

 "This letter has reference to the several discussions, between the Organization and Carrier regarding the filling of Maintainer vacancies for which no bids have been received.

 It is agreed that Section IV. B. of the May 7, 1976 Implementing Agreement is modified by the addition

 of a paragraph 7. as below:

 '7. In the event a maintainer position cannot
 be filled in accordance with the previous
 paragraphs, all employees considered non
 qualified, who submitted an application for
 such position, will be given a qualification
 test and the senior employee qualifying will
 be assigned the position. If the position
 still cannot be filled, the moat junior em
 ployee in the class holding an advertised
 Signalman's position, who has previously been
 qualified and worked an advertised Maintainer
 position shall be assigned to the position.
 Form 1 Award No. 27712
 Page 3 Docket No. SG-27021
 89-3-86-3-60
 Positions filled by assignment under the above
 provision shall continue to be advertised as a
 vacancy in accordance with agreement provi
 sions until filled by a qualified employee.
 When the position being advertised under this
 provision is filled by another qualified
 employee, the employee who was assigned shall
 return to his former position if available to
 him. An employee whose position has been
 abolished or permanently filled by a senior
 employee while assigned in accordance with
 this provision shall be entitled to a
 displacement in accordance with Section
 IV.C.1. and 2. of the May 7, 1976 Implementing
 Agreement as modified August 12, 1982.
 The Local Chairman and Assistant Division
 Engineer C 6 S/ET shall meet upon request of
 the Local Chairman for the purpose of reliev
 ing an employee assigned more than forty-five
 (45) days to a position in accordance with
 the foregoing by the coincidental assignment
 of the next senior qualified employee not
 then filling a maintainer or higher rated
 position."

 The basic question presented here is whether an employee is entitled to time and one-half (under the August 12, 1982-Letter of Understanding regarding Article 2, Section 17) when a change of shifts is effectuated pursuant to the July 12, 1984 Letter of Understanding (which was negotiated to address vacancies for which no bids w
The answer to the question is no. This is for several reasons. First, the July 12, 1984 letter is viewed as an exception to Article 2, Section 17. This is because the July 12, 1984 letter clearly gave the Carrier the right to force, assign on the basis of seniority, employees to certain unfilled vacancies. If this right was to be restricted by a penalty payment it is reasonable to expect that such a penalty would have been clearly expressed in the body of the July 12, 1984 letter.

 The second reason Article 2, Section 17 does not apply is that it was not the Carrier that caused the Claimant to change shifts; it was the operation of his seniority in Boards have been faced with similar questions before and held that when an employee is moved from one shift to another due to the operation of seniority shift change penalties do not apply. It was stated in Second Division Award 9709 (which involved a force assignment due to no bids being received):
 Form 1 Award No. 27712
 Page 4 Docket No. SG-27021
 89-3-86-3-60
 "A review of the record and in particular the
 numerous cases cited by both parties reveals a
 distinct divergence in the Board's thinking on
 issues involving change of shift rules.
 In this case, greater weight must be given to the
 cases finding that a change of shift that occurs as
 the result of an exercise of seniority under
 circumstances similar to these is _not covered by
 rules such as Rule 91. Under the individual facts
 and circumstances of this case, the greater weight
 must be given to this line of thought because of a
 previous rule which is similar if not identical to
 Rule 91 was so interpreted.
 Other awards that have held in a similar vein view
 such rules as protecting employees from the em
 ployer's indiscriminate changing of shifts rather
 than those caused by exercising seniority. Award
 7251 citing 6344 adequately expresses this view:
 'It is the view of the Board in this case that
 it was the Claimant's exercise of his senior
 ity that resulted in the change of his shift
 and not a change in shift that necessitated
 his exercising his seniority. The Board
 recognized that divergent views have been ex
 pressed by numerous Awards of this Board and
 has carefully examined those opposing Awards
 cited by the parties. This examination leads
 us to support the Awards cited by the Carrier
 and refers the parties to Award No. 6344,
 Second Division, in particular, as it relates
 to a dispute involving the identical Rule at
 issue here and a Claimant who was displaced
 through the exercise of seniority by a senior
 employee and thereby exercising his seniority
 on a position on a different shift. That
 Award sets forth, in simple terms, the prin
 ciple that states:
 The purpose of this rule (Rule 13, which is
 Rule 11 in the subject case) as interpreted
 in prior awards is to penalize Carriers
 when they indiscriminately change shift
 assignments of employees. The overtime
 rate penalty, however, does not apply when
 employees are exercising seniority or
Form 1 Award No. 27712
 Page 5 Docket No. SG-27021
 89-3-86-3-60
 We do not find that the Claimant's change in shift
 assignment was the result of indiscriminate action
 by the Carrier or that the Agreement was vio
 lated.'"






                          By Order of Third Division


Attest.
        ancy J,IIfl6er - Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 2nd day of February 1989.