?AR':'IES ) Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Ste<r..s_ - , Clar:cs,
 TO ) Freight Handlers, Express and Station = :_o;eeo
 DISPiJT) and
 Terminal Railroad Association of St. Louis

 QUESTIONS
 AT ISSUE: (1) Did the Carrier violate the provisions of the




OPINION
 OF BOARD: The Claimant, betc;een the dates of .:ay 23, '_904 and August
 16, 1966, bald the General :ora:aaa's posit.=on in tae :r i1
 and Baggage De parte.lent--a partially ewc2ptec position.
 Upon abolis.ment o° said position on August 16, 1066, in
 the normal exercise of his seniority he obtained a ?cre-:an
 position in the i`311 and ?u2~,~2,2 Department. Tnareaftc'r; tC:c'. Oroanl
 zation verbally petitioned J. Sd. Hammers, Jr., Mar.age_ Labor Relations,
 to protect the Claimant's sale-" pursuant to article iV, Section 1.

 The Carrier initially attacks the ch in on to basis of the time limit rule. Insofar as such is concerned, a claim in writinZ was submitted within 60 days. Ho·::ever, the objection :a_sec by to Carrier is directed at whether such claim was submitted to the proper officer, i.e., the Superintendent. In this regaro, ti:e su~-nissioa includes an exchange of correspondence on the property between the General Chairman and iLnager of Labor Relations relative to the merits of this dispute. Subsequently, on January 13, 1967, the _'anager o= Labor Relations wrote the Organization that no claim had been filed with the officer of the Carrier authorized to receive same.
                                  Casa :;o- G -i ~ _--'_


                  .. ? -


We do not look with favor coon the Car_icr'_ conce: r-ion. From Septeabor .3, 1966 to January 73, 1957, the byU_ _ , e: sip ated officer of the carrier discussed and nego;:iatc;: Ohs , ...._a::c c';-._._.
 with the Organization fully cognizant of its ti-:. i=.ni; provision.
 We hold that there Was proper CO:;n? ll.c-rtCu: with Go MO 1 a-..`:it rule.

 the next cuesCion raises the sulstar:;-iva isscs a., to whether a partially excepted position--a supervisory positicn---. entitled to the protection of Article IV, Section i, o:. vac February 7, '_905 National Agreement. In this retard, the parties refer to the ,abruary 7, 1965-Iretter of Understanding. The Crganiz2cion intcrp_ats such letter to, r..can that the rate of pay of the enumerated officials i::clueec therein is protected as Cu October 1, 1964. GOn the other hand, the Carrier's interpretation of such letter is that when an employee is bznpa6 by such official, then the bumped employee's rate of pay is protected as of October 1, 1$64. Fence, the parties disagree even as to the interpretation to be placed on their Letter of UnderstandinS. Consequently, the alternative is to refer to basic facts. Is a partially excepted employee covered by the effective Agreement between the parties? -,uies 1, 4 (d) and 14 are applicable to the instant position. Rule 1 determines the hours of service and working coalitions of the General Foreman. sole 4 (d) provides for retention and further accumulation of seniority. Rule 14 provides for the exercise of displacement rights. 1.^. the event of complete separation from the service, then Rules 24 and 25 are applicable--investigation and hearing, culminating in an appeal. Additionally, these partially excepted positions arc also covered by National :.'ate Agreements. However, we cannot ignore the .act that the rate o= pay of such position X725 not subject to negotiation. Further, tiat the position was fully appointive with full right of re.-oval and not predicated upon seniority in such appointment. We have, there=ore, conduced that in view Of 5211 position being 2 supervisory one, such was not subject to the protective provisions of Article IV, Section 1.

                      Award


          Answer to questions i and 2 is in the negative.


            %T~ G L

                ~ rlurray Di. Ro: ::an

                      ;veutral r'ember

    - /


Dated: Washington, T0. C.
 March 7, 1969