"Seniority. On August 9, 1995 the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) and the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees General Chairman John Davidson (sic) who is not my locals (201) barging (sic) agent, entered into an agreement that gave 5 new hires super seniority on the Old Colony Lines which violated rule 5 of the Basic Labor Agreement and took away my seniority on these lines in which I was working on for 5 months before this agreement took effect, which resulted in me being bumped off a high paying overtime job, there for (sic) I am requesting this agreement to be found in violation of my seniority rights and be canceled. enforcement of rule 5 of the basic labor agreement, Full payment of all lost wages plus interest and returned to the permanent job I held when I was bumped by a junior employee, The I+R Foreman of the Middleboro crew headquartered in Readville Mass."
On January 1, 1987 the Carrier became the operator of the commuter train service of the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) and in doing so negotiated Implementing Agreements with various labor Organizations, including the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes. The Agreement with the BMWE provided that the Carrier would offer employment to employees of the former Boston and Maine Railroad (B&M), which operated the service before the Carrier, and that the MBTA commuter service thereafter operated by the Carrier would constitute a separate seniority district. Further, the parties agreed that any Conrail employees who would be hired would be placed on the seniority roster with all seniority that they had established as employees of Conrail intact. Five such employees were hired and because their seniority under the Implementing Agreement was greater than that of the Claimant, Claimant was subsequently bumped. He then filed the instant claim.
Similarly, we do not adopt the Carrier's argument that the Claimant put forth before the Board a.claim that differs substantially from that handled on the property. Initially and on the property the Claimant asked that the Implementing Agreement be voided and that he be restored all lost seniority. Before the Board he has asked to be reinstated and made whole. In each instance however, and indeed at all points at which the claim has been considered, the Claimant's underlying argument remained the same, i.e., that the Carrier violated Rule 5 of the Agreement. Therefore we do not believe that the claim differed in any fundamental respect at any point since the Claimant initially filed it.
The third procedural, or more accurately, jurisdictional argument ofthe Carrier bears strong consideration. On this point the Carrier contends, and we agree, that the Claimant asserts that the basis for the Rule 5 violation lies in the seniority terms of the Implementing Agreement when it assumed operations of the MBTA from the B&M. Thus, to adopt the Claimant's argument we would be called upon to determine whether that Agreement was legal and binding. This, as the Carrier points out, is a task that is