Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 29094
THIRD DIVISION Docket No. MS-29093
92-3-89-3-488
The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Eckehard Muessig when award was rendered.

(United Steelworkers of America PARTIES TO DISPUTE:


STATEMENT OF CLAIM:

"Mr. Jesus Nieves is grieving the fact that the Company violated his seniority rights, specifically Rule 6: SENIORITY, when they (the company) unilatterally elected to furlough him (J.Nieves) and keep in service an employee junior to him (J.Ni service while Mr.J.Nieves is on furlough is Mr. I. Lowstetter, #261, Extraforeman, in the Maintenanc Maintenance of way dept.







Mr. Nieves was furloughed on Sept. 23, 1988. Mr. Lowstetter continued working in the position of extra-foreman in the Kaint.of Way Dept. The Unions position on the position of extra-foreman is that the person holding such position is still a bargaining unit, dues paying member of the Union and as such, shall be subject to all of the applicable rules of the Agreement between The Lake Terminal Rail Road Co. and the United Steelworkers of America.

Remedy Requested: Mr.Nieves be immediately re-instated from furlough and that he be compensated for all lost time (including overtime) in addition to all lost benefits.

In the event that Mr. Nieves is not immediately re-instated from furlough, that he be paid all monies lost and all lost benefits that he is kept on furlough."

FINDINGS:

The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that:
Form 1 Award No. 29094
Page 2 Docket No. MS-29093
92-3-89-3-488

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.

Parties to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing thereon.

The Claimant had been furloughed from his position as a Burner on September 23, 1988. His Claim Is that another employee who was working as an Extra Foreman and who was junior to the Claimant should have been replaced i,y a more senior qualified employee. This sequence of actions would have permitted the Claimant to cont
The Board has carefully reviewed the record and finds that the Claim must be denied. The Extra Forgman position is supervisory and is not a part of the bargaining unit. Therefore, it is not subject to the seniority provisions of the Contract. Th contractual language was settled in favor of the Carrier (Second Division Award 1351).








Attest:
        ancy J. r -.Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 23rd day of January 1992.