::RT,
 ..I~E,^, ) L rfo Lc3:.~:annu ??.,,.y_. _ (.(_.ry~ny
 m0 TXYE . ^~
DISPUTE `C1'ctnB,Ortiaion°E::::'.":~:;:a::::~:'C.;i~zr. employees Union
 QLTi3STION
 AT ISSUE: Are employes protccted employes, who, on
 October 1, 164, had two or more years
 employment relationship with the Carrier,
 and who transferred frcm one class of
 service to another during the two years
 . immediately preceding October 1, 1964,
 -- retaining their seniority in the class
 from which transferred?
 OPINION
 OF BOARD: The Organization members of the Disputes Committee
 withdrew R. J. Cody as a claimant, since carrier's
 Submission shed that his employment did not start
 until April 14, 1964.

 The two other Claimants had worked for Carrier for many years. Each held seniority as a clerk on October 1, 1962, and transferred to service in the Telegrapher class during the two years prior to October 1, 1964. According to the Organization, they have the requisite two-year employment relationship, since they had been promoted from Clerk to Agent and Question No. 9 on Page 4 of the Interpretations of November 24, 1965, therefore is applicable.



                                    Case No. TCU-15-E


              C:rdinnrily no; however, in cases such a::; prc°motion of a telegrapher to train di:,-;:ccher, rrcmotion of a clerk. to ynrc:;r:tstor, etc., where the seniority i.~ ure.:: craft zr,:~:i which promoted is .. _ _ __Lii, estnlc~·^^cnt .n t:aa higher classification will be counted.


C=r::r c::rnt-_nds that ^arvice in the Clerk and Telegrapher crafts cannot be combined in calculating the period of Claimant's emnlovr:ent relationship. I.Tot only does Question No. 9 provide that employment in more than one craft cannot be counted, it was said, but the stated exception concerning promotion is not applicable; the T"~Iegraphers' agreement does not deal with retention of Clerks' seniority, and there is no agreement between the two Organizations on the subject.

 While~there is an agreement between the Clerks and Carrier that employees moving into the Telegraphers' craft would retain Clerks' seniority, this case does not hinge on Claimant's employment as a Clerk but as a Telegrapher. The claim is not that of a Clerk seeking credit for time in a higher position, but of a Telegrapher who seeks credit for time in a lower position. The latter is not anticipated by the Interpretation which says that "employment in the higher classification will be counted. (Underlining added.) Thus in the example given in the Interpretations a Clerk promoted to Yardmaster can count service as a Yardmaster in qualifying for protected status as a Clerk. Under the circumstances even if Clerk to Telegrapher were the kind of promotion anticipated, a Clerk could receive credit for employment as a Telegrapher, but not vice versa.

 In any event, promotions, as identified in Question No. 9 csre not movements from one craft to which the February 7, Agreement is applicable to another covered by that Agreement. Both cited examples are clearly supervisory positions, in crafts which are not signatory to the February 7, Agreement. If a move such as Clerk to Agent had been intended to come within the definition of promotion in the Interpretations, or if employment

                          -2-

                                    C77w _3o. TCU-15-E


.z dia:ZYrent cro.~s --..'are to be pooled, it would have been more i,cricul to refer to tiio: a than to tea- Opacific ::rod of promo~_o
    rA c:escribyd.


,·er.c:_i o- emplovr::nt r.:, a Cl(:rk anc~2!dating Toleg
 ='-.c:r ..^,er vice ::h:a : ·.9 .s not .rten~7~:~,"- to be inclued in calculating
 :.-i> =sployment relationship entitliLg a Talegraphor to protected

                        A W A R D


              With respect to Claimants, the answer to the Question is No.


              ' Milton Friedman

              Neutral Member


Dated: July 8 , 1971
 Washington, D. i