" ..H. J. DeLoach (the Claimant) had to bid on this position to protect his foreman's seniority but did not agree to work off of his seniority district on this voluntary basis and because the Carrier refused to make arrangements that (were) mutually agreeable to both parties Mr. DeLoach was forced to work the assignment or give up his foreman's seniority through no fault of his own."

Relief requested was travel time and mileage incurred by the Claimant on various work days from October 9, 1989, through October 29, 1989, because of his travel from Cincinnati, Ohio, to Plymouth, Indiana. This amounted to 17.5 hours of travel time and 981 miles. According to the denial of the claim by the Carrier:

"Mr. DeLoach (had) bid on a temporary foreman's position on August 28, 1989, and at the time there was no protest from Mr. DeLoach regarding his working on a temporary basis on the Northern Region. On September 13, 1989, due to the death of J. E. Naylor, this temporary position was readvertised as permanent. In order to protect his seniority, Mr. DeLoach bid and was awarded the permanent foreman's position. Even though Mr. DeLoach now protested his working on the Northern Region there was no comparable positions to which he could be assigned on the Southern Region therefore he was required to fill the position accordingly."

As the claim was being progressed on property the Organization amended requested relief to status of a continuing claim for "...each month (the) Claimant is required to work off of his assignment."

The facts of record show that when the Claimant had bid on and received the temporary position as Signal foreman in August of 1989, he worked the Northern Region. The temporary position was readvertised as permanent with the death of the Claimant's coworker who was foreman of the Southern bid on it in order to keep his seniority, as stated, and continued doing, effectively, the same thing. Evidently, after the Claimant received the permanent position, he changed his mind about his willingness to work the Northern Region and to work only the Southern Region. Since the Carrier would not permit him to work the Southern Region, the claim was filed. According to the Organization, the carrier is in violation of provisions of the August 31, 1988 Letter of Understanding because, according to the

organization's letter dated February 28, 1990 to the Carrier, the 11...Carrier was not willing to work out an arrangement to bid on the job but not (allow the Claimant to) take the position until the gang was back on the Southern Railway Liens West Seniority District..."

The parties signed a supplementary agreement to the August 31, 1988, one, as noted in the foregoing. That agreement outlined factual issues related to available work for the Southern signal gang. The organization and the Carrier clearly agreed, in the supplementary agreement dated July 20, 1989, that the Southern Signal gang would have to work other seniority districts or the gang would have to be abolished. There was other work to be done on some 15 additional crossing signals on the Norfolk and Western. One option was for the Carrier to contract this work out. Another was to have it done by the Southern Signal gang. By Agreement, the parties opted for the latter. Thus the Southern Gang, in accordance with the July 7, 1989 Agreement, continued to work, in this case, on the northern region. No one had a problem with that, including the Claimant, as far as the record shows, until he bid for, and was awarded, the permanent position of foreman after his colleague died who had held that position, or until he went from temporary to permanent status as a foreman. Apparently, it is the belief of the Claimant that after he made that move, he had a right to a special, personal arrangement with the Carrier to work only the Southern Region. He did not, for a number of reasons. First of all, an individual contract between the Claimant and the Carrier, or some sort of "arrangement" as intimated by the organization, is improper under a union contractual arrangement. The Claimant has no more, nor no less, rights or privileges than his fellow collective bargaining unit members. Secondly, since the basis for the instant claim is found in the language of the provisions of the August 31, 1988 Agreement, to which the supplementary agreement of July 20, 1989 refers to, the intent of that language must be underlined. This language does not require any member of the Southern Signal gang to work outside the Southern District as the Claimant correctly notes, irrespective of what position in the gang one holds. The Claimant's option, then, was to exercise his rights under this language and not work outside of his district. Obviously, in so choosing, he had to take into consideration the facts as outlined in his own organization's and the Carrier's supplementary agreement of July 20, 1989.

On basis of the record as a whole the instant claim cannot be sustained.

A W A R D