PARTIES Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and
 Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers,
 DILUTE: Express and Station Employes
 and
 Southern Pacific Transportation Company,
 Texas and Louisiana Lines
 STATEMENT Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood
 F CLAIM: that: -


















Award No. 28 Case No. 57 page 2

 (6) In addition Carrier shall be required to pay
 interest in the amount of 2 percent compounded
 monthly on all sums due Claimants as a result of
 this violative action.

 FINDINGS: By reason of the Agreement dated April 20, 1977, and
 upon the whole record and all the evidence, the Board
 finds that the parties herein are employe and carrier within the
 meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as amended, and that it has
 Jurisdiction.

 Here, Claimant exercised her seniority and displacement rights, as provided in Item 2, Section 1(a) of Article IV of the TOPS Agreement when her position was abolished. She displaced Clerk Roger Knight who elected to resign and accepted severance pay, as provided in Item 3, Section l(a) of said Article IV.

 The basic issue here is the same as in Case No. 56. All of the reasons and conclusions reached 3n said Case No. 56 are applicable for a determination of this dispute and are affirmed.

 For all of the reasons stated in said Case No. 56, the Board finds that the Carrier did not violate the Agreement, that Carrier has the right to include for attrition determination those employes who resign to accept severance pay. It follows that the claim has no merit.

 AWARD
Claim denied.

 PUBLIC LAW OARD N0. 1946

 D DO C , Ch Airman ands N ^u

 y n//

 H. er MemFer
 DATED: ~~ ~~

 Mem er

 Emp oye .em er


                        TO AWARDS 27 AND 28

PUBLIC LAW BOARD N0, 1946 It was not the intent of the Rule, nor was it ever applied in this fashion until 1976, six years after "TOPS" (September 16, 1971) that Carrier could abolish in excess of 8% of the base number of positions in any calendar year. However, in the year 1976, Carrier abolished 38 positions, four more than what was permitted under the 8% limitation applied to the 429 existing permanent positions, The Board never extended the scope of its jurisdiction to that issue, although this was the issue, and the decision should have been based upon that issue, not that as stated by the Majority;

    "The real basic issue is whether or not an employe who accepts severance pay

pursuant to the provisions of Article IV of the TOPS Agreement has "resigned' within
 the meaning and intent of Section 12-(c) of Article II of that Agrement. The deter
 ' urination 'of that question is relevant to a calculation of attrition credits used
 to abolish positions," (Page 3, first paragraph of Award 27)
 The "real issue" was framed on the property at the outset when Division Chairman
 Greeter set it forth in his initial claim thusly;

    "At the beginning of the year 1976, there were 429 permanent positions on Seniority District No, 1 of the Southern Pacific Transportation Company-Texas and Louisiana Lines, Under the Agreement signed September 16, 1971, Addendum No. 1 known as the TOPS Ageement, Carrier had the right to abolish 8 percent of the permanent positions in the year 1976, that being a total of 34 permanent positions on Seniority District No, 1 on the Texas and Louisiana Lines of the Southern Pacific Transportation Company. Carrier exceeded that 8'percent when Position No. 066 was abolished at the close of business on December 7. 1976," Petitioner stated at Page 3, first paragraph of its submission;


"Both parties agreed in conference on November 18, 1977, that the question to be submitted to your Honorable Board in this case was . . . 'Does the 8% limitation apply when reducing positions in excess of the number required in the application of paragraphs (a) and (d) of Section 12 in Article 11 of the TOPS Agreement...' ". The answer propounded by the Majority begs the "real issue". Thus, the question as propounded was never answered, Moreover, Section 12 (c) , Article II, TOPS Agreement states:
 "One attrition credit shall be allowed for each employe who vacates a permanent aasi nment by reason of.,." No'assignmeat was vacated, Carrier abolished Position 066, after which the incumbent thereof elected to take separation pay, Hence, the Carrier put the cart before the horse
 HWO -~29-19710

 ..z., in its endeavor to improperly secure an attrition credit, The act of separation came after the act of abolishment, We ask the question: How can one vacate a position that does not exist?
 The Majority erred grievously in its decision; therefore, we can not accept this Award as being a valid and binding interpretation of the Agreement, hence our dissent.

 R, 0, Norton
 Employee Member
 ;public Law Board No, 1946

~ 9, n79