NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
 Form 1 THIRD DIVISION Award No. 29564
 Docket No. MW-29236
 93-3-90-3-110


(of Way Employes
 PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
 (Consolidated Rail Corporation

 STATEMENT OF CLAIM:




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 employe within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 1934.
 Form 1 Page 2

 Award No. 29564
 Docket No. MW-29236
 93-3-90-3-110

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 Claimants, in furlough status at the time of the Claim, hold seniority in the Youngstown Division Seniority District. The claim states that certain repair work was performed at the Brier Hill Shop in Youngstown (within the Youngstown Division Seniority District) by employees from Inter-Regional Seniority District No. 4 who hold no seniority at Youngstown.


Two similar claims were at issue between the parties. In response to an organization suggestion, the Carrier wrote to the General Chairman as follows:




System Dockets CR-2376 and CR-2377 were the subject of sustaining Award No. 29 of Public Law Board No. 3781. That Award noted, "The Brier Bill Repair Shop is located on the Youngstown Division in Inter-Regional Seniority District 2."


When the organization sought settlement of the Claims here under review on the basis of this Award, the carrier apparently refused to sustain the Claims. (The Board states "apparently", because the record shows no additional on-property correspondence.)


In its presentation to the Board, the carrier defends its position by noting a distinction between the Youngstown Division and Interregional Seniority District #2. As noted by the Organization, there is no record of such distinction being raised on the property. Further, the Organization cites Appendix D, which reads in pertinent part as follows:


"Seniority District #2 includes the territory of the following:

 Allegheny 'A' Division
 Allegheny 'B' Division
 Pittsburgh Division
 Youngstown Division"
 Form 1 Award No. 29564
 Page 3 Docket No. MW-29236

In view of this provision and Public Law Board No. 3871's reference to Brier Hill as within the Youngstown District, the Board is not persuaded that there is a meaningful difference between this Claim and those reviewed by Public Law Board No. 3871. It follows that a similar sustaining Award is in order.


                        A WA R D


      Claim sustained.


                          NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                          By Order of Third Division


Attest:
        ancy J. er.- Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 9th day of March 1993.

CARRIER MEMBERS' DISSENT

TO

AWARD 29564, DOCKET MW-29236

(Referee Marx)


In this Award, the Majority stated that it did not find a meaningful difference between this claim and the previous claims (System Docket CR-2376 and CR-3777) which were sustained by Award No. 29 of Public Law Board No. 3781. We disagree. There is clear seniority district distinction. In the claims reviewed by PLB 3781, the claimants possessed Inter-Regional District No. 2 seniority and they complained that employees with Inter-Regional District No. 4 seniority performed work on equipment at the Brier Hill Repair Shop, and the Neutral concluded:

 "Rule 4, Section 1(b) and Section 5(b) and (c), clearly provide that seniority standing exists on the basis of rosters of specified seniority districts and that such seniority districts may only be changed by agreement between the Senior-Director-Labor Relations and the involved General Chairman. Moreover, it is axiomatic that equipment has no significance in regard to seniority and that, although Management has sole authority to determine where equipment shall be located, seniority does not follow equipment and hence, this authority _does not make senioritv interchangeable between and among districts. (Emphasis added)" In the instant case, the Claimants have Youngstown District Seniority, thev DO NOT have Inter-Regional District No. 2 seniority.
 The Organization skillfully directed the Neutral's attention to Appendix D which reads in pertinent part as follows:

        "Seniority District 112 included the territory of the following:


Allegheny "A" Division Allegheny "B" Division Pittsburgh Division Youngstown Division" From the above, the Neutral apparently concluded the above cited "territorv" depicting the geographical boundaries of Seniority District #I2 conveyed
 CM Dissent, Award 29564 (Docket MW-29236) Page 2

 rights to the Youngstown Seniority District. He is absolutely wrong. Inter-Regional Seniority District #f2, as well as IR Districts Nos. 1, 3, and 4 cover the work territory for all rail and undercutting units. Rail and undercutting gangs are not advertised to Division type seniority districts such as the Youngstown Seniority District. The work in question in the instant case involved undercutters which accrues to the InterRegional Seniority Districts, as 29 of PLB 3781. By this Award, the Organization has won the best of both worlds. In Award No. 29 of Public Law Board No. 3781, they argued that employees of Inter-Regional Seniority District No. 2 have a demand right to work performed in their seniority district and the Neutral agreed with their position. In the Instant case, they argued that Youngstown Seniority District employees have a demand right to the exact same work, clearly, a position opposite to that which was presented before PLB 3781.
 In addition the Majority in this case stated there is no distinction between seniority districts being raised on the property. We disagree. The Majority evidently overlooked Carrier's July 19, 1989 response to the General Chairman which address months prior to the Organization's filing of this dispute with the NRAB.
 Aside from the fact that this is a costly windfall award to employees who had no demand right to the work, the Carrier is now left in a quandary as to what "seniority district" (Inter-Regional District 112 or Youngstown District) should the Carrier assign such work in the future. Obviously, whichever seniority district is selected, the Carrier will certainly be wrong from the Organization's point of view.
 CM Dissent, Award 29564 (Docket MW-29236) Page 3

 In summary, the Award is palpably erroneous and the monetary windfall is undeserved. We dissent.

                            . L. Hic


                          M. W. Fingerhut


                          M. C. L nik ' O


                          P. V. Varga


                            4~M~

                              - Yost