The carrier or carriers and the employee or employees involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employee within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934.

This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.

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

The Claimant has a hire date of May 25, 1970 on the Union Pacific and holds seniority in various classes of the Maintenance of Way Department. As a result of mergers, employees involved in this dispute carried designations on the relevant seniority lists as "U" (Union Pacific), "C" (CNW), "S" (Southern Pacific), "W" (Western Pacific) and "D" (Denver and Rio Grande).

At the time this dispute arose, the Claimant was working as a System Gang Group 26 Laborer on System Gang 9031 in the vicinity of Fairbury, Nebraska. On January 4, 1999, the Claimant, who maintains a "U" designation, was not allowed to displace employees holding "C", "W", and "S" designations who had lesser hire dates than the Claimant so that the Claimant could continue working on System Gang 9031. This claim followed.

Section 4 provides:

"(A) When employees with home road designations and seniority dates of June 1, 1998 or earlier apply for bulletined Group 20, 26, and 27 positions, assignments will be handled as follows:

(1) When bids are received from only C, S, W, and/or D designated employees, the employee listed on the applicable seniority roster with the superior seniority date/ranking will be assigned.

(2) When bids are received from only U designated employees, the employee listed on the applicable seniority roster with the superior seniority date/ranking will be assigned.

(B) The exercise of seniority displacement rights by these employees will be controlled by the same principles explained in Section 4(A)."

The language of Section 4 is clear. See Third Division Award 36855 addressing the language in Section 4 (". . . the language is very clear and has no ambiguity"). Section 4(B) adopts the principles in Section 4(A) for employees exercising displacement rights. Section 4(A)(3) states in no uncertain terms that °°[w]hen bids [here, attempts to displace] are received from U designated employees, as well as C, S, W, and/or D designated employees, the senior U designated applicant and the senior employee among the C, S, W, and D designated applicants will be identified, and the employee with the senior hire date will be assigned." The Claimant, who held a "U" designation had the senior hire date over the other gang members holding "C", "W", and "S" designations. The Claimant therefore should have been allowed to displace a junior employee on System Gang 9031. By not allowing the Claimant to do so, the Carrier violated Section 4.

The Carrier's argument that its actions were permissible because the Claimant was in a "cycle bump," does not change the result. See Third Division Award 36855, supra:

". . . There is no Agreement between the parties to this dispute as to the "cycle" issue and no signed Agreement herein disputed. We find nothing presented by the Carrier on property that was negotiated by the parties and supports its decision."

As a remedy, the Claimant shall be made whole for actual losses, if any, resulting from the Carrier's failure to allow him to displace a junior employee on System Gang 9031. This matter is remanded to the parties to determine the extent of that relief.

AWARD