PARTIES ) Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steauaship Clerks,
 110 ) FreightHa ndlers, Express & Station Employes
 DISPUTE) end
 Banor and Aroostook Railroad Company
 Q w S 1'X011
 A: ISSU: Were the rights of Clerk Laurel R. Littlefield, a protected
 employee under the rebru2ry 7, 1965 Agreement, violated when
 he was transferred in accordance with Article III, Section 1
 of said Agrcecent arA pint on seniority list 8.s the most junior
 clerk incte.d of next bolcv the moot junior protected ecdlcyee
 in the seniority district into which he csas transferred?
 In view of eircunstancos outlined in Carrier's Statenent of
 Facts, shall Carrier change seniority roster to show Clerk
 Laurel R. Littlefield with a seniority date of January 26,
 1960, on the Revenu=e Section roster next below Clerk S. W.
 Gilman?

 OPUIaON
 OF L°0!r1J; The position of Clerk Littlefield tt.·as abolished on Juns 20, 1968,
 on his seniority district at Presque Isle. Subsequently, a va
 cancy developed in another seniority district at ,Bangor, Kline,
 which was offered to and accepted by Clerk Littlefield. Although
 the seniority dazi on tte sending roster lists the individual as 1 - 26 - 60, on
 the receiving roster his seniority date is shown as 7 - 14 - 69. Prior to effec
 tuating the transfer of the individual to Bangor, tfz pasties executed an ly:ple
 menting Aureem_nt on Ju;a 11, 1969, in accord!ince with Article III of. the
 February 7, 1965 Agrve:-nt. Thirea.iter, the individual was plLced 3t the bottom
 of the receiving seniority roster--below four unprotected employees.

 Subsequently, the Unrriar was apprised of a series of AA·ards rondr.:red by our Board, e_hich provild that a protaetad er.:ployae who is transferred to xinotUr seniority discrict should be placed below clue rust junior protected Crxployr on the s=aaiority list. In effect, the Carrier i3 nom requestin7 that saa:!re th2~ro aro both pa:ofectid and nor-pro"_ctsd eaploy:.es on a seniority rovtar, the tr=^.usfca~red ..a--aoy.~.v r_sthoald ba plec^d below the r-"t junior protected employee, but d3v~n i~i.10d ..°."=:aeey' tuG uzl3Sotscct.!'!d e:_;;loj:?.~s.

 1t_ CFS'rier Supports its po:33ition by relying upon Award Nos. 67, 79-90. The Organization, in turn, scoffs at the Carrior's attempt to rewrite c..n Implexsnting AgraeLnnt which was entered into by th,2 parties in good faith.

 It should be noted, furt`_cr·..~lre, that the Inple«nting Aprzer.=ut executed on June 11, 1969, is silent on the qu-stion of seniority dovetailing. Mince, the Carrier urges that we have th.o pe-rer to provide for such coating.-ncy as we would not be changing any terma in the Agreocant.

 Should rns aseur-e- the prorog-itiva of mwddling with an Imple:enting Agree=nt executed by th,~ parties? The Carrior does not contend that said Ispl.emeeting Agreemnt is a~>'~iguous or unclear, a=rely, that it is silent on the
                                            Case Ho. CL°47-E


                          _ 2 _


question of seniority dovetailing.. Eauce, predicrned on previous Auarda of our Board, ua should ease the necessary inertion. Uaear w:Ast circus stances did our Board pruviou>ly arrive at its conclusion to dovatail? Hnd tLn partiej, cntsred into an Im;lV-4anting Agrecrant bafore it was rcqu=stad to stcarcise its jud~=tent? In each of Via -wards cited to u3, VDs. 67 and 79-9'S, thsre und a proposed Agre_=L-at pmaf2=red by tF.m C-~rriar T:Mich =.vs not accepted by tl.- Crdenizzation. Hence, two ziatter ca^n before the Disputes Coannitt-e to resolve the issue.

 It is our fire bdlief that we should not trn-==r with an Agreer--mit e: scum by both p- rties in gaol faith, cbseut an a.-Mguity. Inns:_~ch as none is all-ad hzisin, we fail to find nny basis for adoing any term to tha Agreemcnt. Unquestionably, care r:a to indule in such act on thin occasion, it would redound to the benefit of the Carriar. Uae_-r 'eiat circus3tances would wa th--reafter rafrain. from adding tams to an AgrveL-nt? In our view, in tha long run, the interests of both pssties would bast be served by fulfillins an A.re-L'-'nt negotiated in good faith, ona arrived at through diecusoions rnd a quid pro g2? exchsnde, as final s.rd binding until ch^:~ged by th- parties thra·uselvcs. Furth3rmore, i.-a care not pri-ry to the naLotiations prfor to .-:a:cuti141 of tL" Irt21enaantinv Agreez2nt on Juna 11, 1969. In addition, ::a could noto that i.n P-rard No. 67, the Beferec prefacad said °uard with V:3 follc;aing stAior:-.nt:

              °7n thn circvr:truc:c dVScrib-i in cea:rinr's

              Staterent of Fact, -°-"


Therefore, it is our conclusion that we should not add any ter-3 to the Ira·:lcm:nting AUcaa_znt executed on Juzn 11, 1969.

                          MIARD


            Ths apse^.ar to Via Quastion is in the nah^aive.


        d~ a


                        lurra t-i. f -.ana Hst?Uial E':.._~er


Dated: W2ahirgton, D.
 . June9, 1971