PARTIES Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees
 TO
 DISPUTE: and
 Union Pacific Railroad Company.

 STATEMENT Claim of the Brotherhood that:
 OF
 CLAIM 1. Protestants contend the Letter of Agreement, dated
 March 8, 1983, between the BMWE General Chairman and
 the Carrier's Chief Engineer correcting the seniority
 date of Mr. M. L. Porteous was not entered into by the
 parties within the time frame as specified by Rule 17
 (b) of the current Agreement.
 2. Protestants further contend Mr. M. L. Porteous's -
 name should be removed from Group 7 Roster because of
 his failure to properly protest the omission of his
 name on the 1_984 and 1985 Seniority Roster.
 OPINION This dispute originated sometime in the mid-19070's
 OF
 BOARD: when employee Mr. M. L. Porteous was promoted from a
 track inspector to a foreman position. For a period of at least
 1976 through 1980 his name did not appear on the seniority roster
 for track inspectors, and he did nothing to contest this
 omission.
 In 1980- the Carrier and the Organization realized that a number of errors in various seniority rosters had arisen over the - years. Therefore they established a special agreement whereby protests over the 1981 seniority roster would be considered outside of the normal period established in Rule 17(b) of the Agreement. Rule 17(b) normally establishes a 90-day period from the date of posting of the seniority roster for employees to-
 protest seniority problems. Tho 1951 ,tur_c·ntt·ttt-, ittiwever, ,illtiwOd prott_sts to be filed over the t`titl rotor 1111111 the end of February, !982. (Exhibits A-1 Lhit,tt,llt A-4).
 The: Carrier and the Orclatiizat.ion in their i,titit -·x .tt~ko submission state that Mr. Prtrteous initially r,t~:;c·tl his Ohjoction to his omission from the track inspector ea.ni~,rity raster at .I union mc·etincl at the very end r,f this qpeci.tl 1981-R3 clrarcr period. The first documentary evidence of the (trottrst appears in letter elated March 13, 198_' (Exhihit A-')). Thr· ca rrit·r initially denied the Claim t)eCLinSI~ Mr. Poi-tt·t~tis It.ttl I,ti Ic·d ttt raise: it 1 ~r seven vcors (I-:xhibil A-7) . flow""" 't , tht :.irri,·: - _ater reversed its position, ackncwledgincy that i= had ~tisapplie·t R-ilr 22(e) , which allows an employee trt re t,cit; hi., 5enjority in his ^r _r;inal class if it·ation when he t,tko.~ a S~-: tion Poreman -j rib. Fxhibi t .i-11 ) .
 Tlic C.irrier also raised the issue tai .Vltt·tlter MI-. Portet0us
 hoc; .-ais~·1 his original claim within the 1'81->t_ special ~IniliesL\
 per·_od (Exhibit A-14). However, eventually the Carrier and tttc
 I-irgar.-Z~-ti0n agreed that Mr, Purt,·,~ua W, :ii(! )c -ti Lito
 sunir3riLy list for track inspectors in (:lass (·t) , G IOUp 7, by
 letter Sated March 8, 1983. (Exhibit A-151.
 Th-Ls i~:tter did not correct the problem, however, becauseMr. Porteous' name failed to appear on both the 1984 and the 1985 seniority rosters. The file contains no ovidence of et writtoti protest of these omissions by Mr. Porteous. However, a letter from Diane E. McMahon, a former employee of the Carrier who was


                                                      3


rcsponsiL:lt <<a- composing Lhe list. :<UttLd th.tt the C.lrriL·L- wasrusporsibi,~ Cllr.- th~s:_ omissions anal that Mr. I'r:rteous was very vocal in 13rlIll:sttllg then: e;lct' yca:-. (I?~Ili!::t.. :1-i7).
 AppartL,-ntly Mr. Portealus was finally l)laced on the 1995 seniority roster, whith <t seniority dat,- of 1·373. This yent·rzlteda series oe protests from uLltul- unlpII>yl·e;. who wcll· oitltor tttreatun<·d with, -,r weri, irt East h.;nl;lc-d 11·,- Iii-. ,·a·rl·i:::- 1:! 11L:; placement on the track inspector; seniority rosl,:r. These lett-c·rs I,rttnartly t.lt:Losted tile ff.tct th,lt Ltle 1'.ttl i~::Il.td not .tdhoa,·d ILI, Rule 1'? (111, ill L1l.IL Mr . hortu<lus 1l.ld IJl·t·It All:.Wl·d ',ll f·c:tlteSt 1li-i

 ::mill i Ly ;:I lc:·ml:·tlt yl'.trS .1 t tl L t I1.· l.t L.I 1 ~t,l I till ..l.tt.l. Il.ld t:l·~·11
m<:Oc in on!it-Iing his name front tilt roster.
 Till: Or.janization and tnc Carrier, it: r!_sl'llnditto t(1 tilt prc.test:,rtt7, stated that they lead the ability t.: waive the rules, :nd had waived the strict require menu of Rull: ' 7 (Ir) n many other CLSe3. I:J'-t!tuaily, how';Ver, the Par l:es .Igl'e:-d l :l hrlilq I It. .·1.1111 bl·toru this Board ice review.
 This. !3~:rd concurs that rho Parties h,:ve not viol.ltud Llte
 A,jrUaarli'I:L .,'y' W"t!!ine Ru1~ 1 ill! all:: 1~1.".'il:q MI'. PC'rteoui ·.tn ttll:
 sulliority · ,)ste r. rn a wrltLen agrehmonl d.ttc·d M,lrch R, 19 8 3 and
 signed by representattvus of bout the Carrier - ~tnd the
 Organtz:,tion, the Parties agreed th.tt Mr. Porteous wOuld lie
 placed on the track inspector seniority roster, with a set:iority
 date going back to 1973. Thus, both the Organization and tit(, -
 Carrier agreed to waive the strict requirements of Rule 1.'(11).
                                              ~I9-(p


                                                    4


The Organization, in responding to the protestants, stated that these type of agreements are common when the Carrier has made a mistake regarding an employee's seniority date, and for some reason that mistake is not raised within the contractual time limits. (See Letter No. 30). Furthermore, the by-laws of the organization specifically permit it to enter into adjustments over the application of the Agreement. For example, Article VII of the by-laws of the Organization's Union Pacific System Division permit the Joint Protective Board to

      negotiate changr·a in the Agreement with the management of the railroads comprising the Union Pacific System Division for rates of pay and working conditions in behalf of all employees coming under the jurisdiction of this System Division.

(Exhibit A-19).
 In addition, Article XXI of the Grand Lodge's Constitution and
 By-Waws give the Brotherhood the full and sole suthority to
 represent all employees in the "negotiating, interpreting and
 applying of agreements." (Exhibit A-18). From chose sections
 this Board concludes that the Organization acted within its
 authority when it adjusted the seniority date of Mr. Porteous.
 The protestants believe that the Parties have trampled on
 their rights by adjusting the rights of Mr. Porteous. There is
 often discontent when there is an adjustment in seniority, and
 when job benefits are awarded on a competitive basis using`
 seniority. Some employees benefit and others are disadvantaged
 by the change.
                                                    5


AWARDS
                                  W


                    Lamont E. Stallworth

                    Neutral Member


Organization Member Carrier M em er

 DATED: DECEMBER 15, 1987