This claim involves the relative seniority order of the Claimant and employee Lilly on the Welder Helpers' seniority roster. The Claimant entered the Carrier's service as a B&B Mechanic in the B&B Department on October 27,1975. Lilly entered the Carrier's service as a Trackman in the Track Department on October 20, 1975 and subsequently acquired B&B seniority on June 22, 1987. Both the Claimant and Lilly held B&B Mechanic positions when they bid for, were awarded, and became qualified on the lower rated B&B Welder Helper positions on the same date in March 1993.
On December 30, 1993, the Claimant's B&B Mechanic position was abolished, and on January 5, 1994 he attempted to displace Lilly from his Welder Helper position. The Carrier's refusal to allow this displacement due to its belief that Lilly had greater Welder Helper seniority than the Claimant led to the Claimant's furlough and the initiation of the instant claim. Its resolution involves interpretation and application of the following Agreement provisions.
The Organization contends that Rule 3, Section 1 applies to this situation, and provides that seniority is maintained, and assignments made, in separate classes and groups, and that the Claimant possesses greater seniority within the B&B Department class in which the Welder Helper assignments were made than Lilly. It asserts that since seniority is departmental, the Claimant was contractually entitled to be placed ahead of Lilly on the B&B Welder Helper seniority roster, although with the same dates, since he had greater B&B department seniority. The Organization argues that the Carrier misapplied Rule 4 Section 1(b) which only relates to promotions to a higher class and permits ranking in order of the earliest seniority date when employees are promoted from different classes, since this is a situation where both employees were working in the same higher class (Mechanic) and bid into a lower class position (Welder Helper). The Organization relies upon Third Division Award 34991 as determinative of the issue herein, and requests that the Claimant be made whole for the time he was on furlough and be placed above Lilly on the Welder Helper seniority roster.
The Carrier argues that it properly applied Rule 4 in placing Lilly ahead of the Claimant on the Welder Helper roster. It notes that Rule 4 Section 1(b) clearly states that if employees are promoted from different classes, they will be ranked in accordance with their earliest seniority dates, and does not specify within a classification. The Carrier asserts that Lilly and the Claimant were active in separate classes when they acquired Welder Helper seniority. It contends that there is no B&B seniority class, but that such department comprises several rosters which each list seniority by class, and that Welder Helper is one of three classes within the Welder roster. Since neither Lilly nor the Claimant possessed seniority within this class, the Carrier argues that it was appropriate to consider Lilly's earlier overall seniority date in placing him on the roster ahead of the Claimant. The Carrier relies upon a May 2, 1984 letter from Senior Director of Labor Relations Bent to three General Chairmen in support of its position, as codified in Public Law Board No. 3781, Award 63. It also states that if the Organization is successful, any award of damages must be limited to the period of the Claimant's furlough, January 5 to March 7, 1994.
A careful review of the record convinces the Board that the rationale expressed in Third Division Award 34991 is equally applicable herein. While it is true that this case does not involve a promotion, but rather a bid from a higher class (B&B Mechanic) to a lower class within the same department (B&B Welder Helper), the fact remains that the only time Rule 4 (1)(b) permits the Carrier to rank employees acquiring seniority on the same date on the basis of earliest overall seniority is if they are promoted from Form 1 Award No. 35415
different classes. In this case the Carrier argues that since Lilly maintained active Trackman seniority from an earlier date than the Claimant at the time of the bid, he was bidding from a different class than the Claimant. However, there is no doubt that both the Claimant and Lilly held the position of B&B Mechanic at the time they bid on, and were awarded, the B&B Welder Helper position, and thus, cannot be said to be bidding from a different class at the relevant time. As the Board noted in Third Division Award 34991:
Even were it argued that Rule 4 (1)(b) does not technically apply because there was no promotion involved herein, we are not convinced that the May 2, 1984 letter relied upon by the Carrier applies, as this case does not involve advertised positions in other seniority districts. The concept of department seniority set forth in Rule 3 lends further support for the Organization's position. We conclude that the Carrier violated the Claimant's seniority rights by placing him below Lilly on the B&B Welder Helpers' seniority roster, and direct that such roster be amended accordingly. Since the Claimant was furloughed between January 5 and March 7, 1994 as a result of his placement below Lilly on such roster, he shall be compensated for that time period at the appropriate Welder Helper straight time rate of pay.
This Board, after consideration ofthe dispute identified above, hereby orders that an award favorable to the Claimant(s) be made. The Carrier is ordered to make the Award effective on or before 30 days following the postmark date the Award is transmitted to the parties.