The facts at bar are that the BMWE Committees utilized the above Agreement to implement displacement rights between the UP, C&NW and SP employees. The Claimant was a C&NW employee and, therefore, designated "C" in the above language. The facts are that all seven of the remaining employees on System Gang 9063 were Junior to the Claimant, but held a "U" designation. The Organization argues that the failure of the Carrier to allow displacement was both "a direct violation of Section 4(B)" and also, "a discriminatory practice against a `C' designated employee versus a `U' designated employee."

The applicable language above is clearly Section 4(B)(3). The Carrier responded on the property that it was confronted with a dilemma. As it applied this provision in the application and utilization of both service dates and seniority dates, a °6cycle" was created. It presented a case where three employees could continuously exercise seniority displacement without resolution. The Carrier, therefore, attempted to resolve the situation and work out an agreement. In its letter of June 4, 1999, the Carrier states:

"In our discussion, BMWE Vice President Rick Wehrli stated the following understanding is the BMWE interpretation of the method to be utilized in determining who was the employee to be displaced under the above circumstances.

1. In accordance with the guidelines set forth in Section 4(B), the Carrier will identify the senior employee of those involved as if all were appllying for one (1) position of the same class. That employee wiill then choose the position of his/her choice involved in the displacement.

2. The process specified in (1) above will be repeated among the other employees in connection with each of the remaining positions involved until all of the positions have been filled.

3. The last employee not holding one of the positions involved after completion of (1) and (2) above, may exercise seniority to any other position not included in the above displacements ....

As you are aware the above interpretation of Section 4(B) was first implemented in determining displacements. When the Carrier

started receiving claims over the above application, a meeting was held to discuss the situation. Subsequent to that meeting the Carrier began applying the resolution of displacements based upon the discussions in those meetings. Since BMWE Vice President Wehrli has stated the initial application is to be the correct understanding in applying Section 4(B) the previous claims submitted to the Carrier will be considered moot."

The Carrier maintains throughout this claim that two different General Chairmen are disagreeing with the correct interpretation and, therefore, it cannot move forward. The claim at bar was the opposite of the claim of another General Chairman. The Carrier stated that it had acted in good faith, but that "What the BMWE General Chairmen signatory to the Consolidated System Gang Agreement are doing is effectively `whipsawing' the Carrier. In essence what you and General Chairman Tanner are saying is that the Carrier is wrong if we apply the June 4 (or December 14, 1998) understanding or we are wrong if we don't apply that understanding."

The Board considered the entire and extensive chain of discussions attempted on the property to resolve the "cycle" issue. Certainly, the Carrier has a problem with the exercise of seniority displacement rights under the Consolidated System Gang Agreement. However, the Board does not. We are empowered only to resolve disputes between the Carrier and the Organization over the application and interpretation of Agreements.

The initial question in any contract interpretation dispute is the applicability of the contract before us. The entire history of the "cycle" involves the Carrier's attempt to develop a uniform certification Letter of Agreement over the application of the language of Section 4(B). There is no Letter of Agreement before the Board. The contract language the Carrier applied "based upon good faith actions" was language applied without concurrence of the Organization.

The Board must consider next whether the language is clear and supports the claim. The language is clear in this record. The Claimant was the only person applying for displacement and held a `C' designation. He had seniority over the other seven `U' designated employees and seniority was governed by Section 4(A)3. The Claimant had the senior hire date and should have been assigned.

04-3-00-3-499