Claim is filed for Ms. Ann Tucker, Clerk, North Billerica, Massachusetts, for difference in rate of $12.27 per hour she is currently earning and $13.54 which she was earning in the Car Utilization position she was displaced off of. Claim commences August 31, 1995, and is for each and every day until the situation is corrected.

Carrier violated the Agreement when it allowed a former Maine Central employe to use system seniority rights and displace Ms. Tucker illegally.

Award No. 33618

Parties to said dispute were given due notice of hearing thereon.

In May 1995, Claimant held a Car Utilization position with an hourly rate of $13.54. According to the GO-5 Seniority Roster (Consolidated General Office) Claimant held both a department seniority date and a system-wide seniority date of July 27, 1974.

In 1993, Clerk Avjian bid on and was awarded a position in the Carrier's Accounting and Finance Department. As a result of attaining this position, CIerkAvjian established seniority in the Accounting and Finance Department (Seniority Roster GO2) as of June 4, 1993. The published 1994 and 1995 GO-2 Seniority Rosters also showed Clerk Avjian with a Carrier or system seniority date of May 19, 1971. Subsequent to the publication of the 1994 and 1995 GO-2 Seniority Rosters, Claimant did not protest the seniority standings. Indeed, there was not any protest resulting in a change in the roster standings. Rule 4 provides that the seniority roster becomes accurate and permanent if no substantiated protest is received within 60 days of the date the rosters are published. The same rosters show that Clerk Avjian held the least amount of departmental seniority in the Department covered by the GO-2 Seniority Roster.

In May 1995, a senior employee displaced Clerk Avjian. Since he was the most junior employee on the GO-2 roster, Clerk Avjian was unable to displace anyone within his department. Next, Clerk Avjian opted to displace Claimant.

The Organization alleges that Clerk Avjian's displacement was improper. As a result of the displacement, Claimant was forced to displace another clerical employee from a Clerk-Steno position which held an hourly rate of $12.27. Claimant seeks the difference in compensation between the position from which she was displaced and the position to which she exercised her seniority.

On July 29, 1975, the parties entered into the BRAC-5 Agreement. Section IIA of the BRAG-5 Agreement reads:

"Any employe of any seniority district having displacement rights, who has exhausted seniority and who is unable to hold a position within the confines of his respective seni =city district either because of lack of fitness and ability or because of the absence of the junior employe in the respective seniority district, shall have the right to exercise displacement rights,

based on necessary fitness and ability, over any employee with less total Company seniority who is occupying a position coming within the scope and subject to the exercise of seniority rules of the BRAC Rules Agreement. Such exercise of seniority must be made within twenty-five (25) days of the date of actual abolishment or displacement."

The plain and unambiguous language of Section IIA of BRAC-5 permits a clerical employee to use Carrier wide seniority in a displacement situation provided the clerical employee has first exhausted the employee's departmental seniority. Inasmuch as Clerk Avjian was unable to displace anyone within his department, CIerkAvjian appropriately resorted to his Carrier wide seniority. Clerk Avjian's seniority date was May 19,1971, while Claimant's seniority date was July 26, 1974. As such, Clerk Avjian was senior to Claimant. Thus, the displacement was proper.