Parties
 to the
 Dispute: Transportation Communications International Union
 and
 CSX Transportation, Inc.
 Statement
 of the
 Claim: Claim of the system commit-Lee of the Brotherhood,
 that:
 1. Carrier violated the provisions of Rule 49 of
 the Clerks' Agreement on January 24 and 25;
 February 9, 20 and 21; and March 8, 1987,
 when it denied Clerk T. R. Smith sick pay
 benefits.
 2. As a consequence of the above violation,
 Carrier shall now compensate Clerk Smith one
 I1) day's pay for each of the above dates-

 Opinion of tha Board:
 Prior to July 1, 1986, the Carrier, CSX Transportation, Inc., was known as the Seaboard System Railroad. The Seaboard System was created by a merger of the Seaboard Coast Line and the Louisville and Nashville railroads in December 1982. The Seaboard Coast Line, in turn, had been created by the merger. of two previous rail carriers in July 1967. Before that merger, those two railroads had maintained separate phosphate shiploading facilities at Port Tampa and nearby Seddon Island, Florida. After 1967, the Seaboard Coast Line constructed a new loading facility known as East Bay or Rockport, south of Tampa, and prepared to close the two previous facilities.

When the separate facilities were closed and consolidated, the Carrier had employees represented by both the International Hxotherhood of Electrical Workers (hereinafter referred to as "T_BEW") and the Brotherhood of Railway and Airline Clerks (hereinafter referred to as "BRAC") involved in phosphate loading
 at the new faqility. The two groups of employees had separate -

 seniority rosters under their separate agreements with the
 Carrier. on February 12, 1970, the Carrier executed an agreement
 with IBEW and BRAC merging the seniority rosters as of April 1,
 1970. The merged roster was achieved by dovetailing the names on
 the previously separate rosters according to their respective
 seniority dates.
 After the merger, the IBEW continued to represent employees occupying historical electrical positions, while BRAC continued to represent employees in phosphate handling positions. However, the employees on the joint roster represented by either craft were enabled to bid to positions represented by the other craft, and back again. Under this arrangement,. when an IBEW position is bulletined, it is awarded to the senior qualified bidder regardless of his affiliation with IBEW or BRAC, and the same applies when a HRAC position is bulletined. This permits the flow of employees between positions covered by the BRAC and IBEW agreements, a situation which apparently benefits the Carrier and the employees.

                          2

                                        P,b.B. 4505

                                        Award No,

Case N~ In July 1973, Claimant x. R. Smith began with the Carrier at Tampa as a phosphate handler, a position represented by BRAC. On January 1, 1986, he was awarded a position at Tampa represented by 213EW. Claimant held the I98W position until September 30, 1986, when he returned to a position represented by BRAC. In all of calendar 1986, Claimant worked a total of 58 days in the position covered by the BRAC agreement. In 1987, while still holding a position under the BRAC agreement, Claimant applied for supplemental Sickness 8eneiits for the dates listed in this claim. Supplemental Sickness Benefits are provided for by Rule 49 of the agreement between the Carrier and T3RAC. Paragraph (b) of Rule 49 states:

      (b) 'Subject to the conditions hereinafter set forth, employees who have been in continuous service of the carrier for the period of time, as specified, will be allowed in each year their daily rate of compensation for time absent account bona fide sickness on days when they would otherwise be entitled to work, on the following basis:

        Qualifying Years Benefit Days

        of Service Pet Year

        1 through 5 years 5

        6 through 10 years 10 _

        11 through 14 years 12

        15 years and over 15


      In order to qualify for the first year's eligi

      bility for benefits, an employee must have rendered

      compensated service an not less than one hundred twenty

      (120) days during the preceding calendar year. In

      order to qualify for benefits thereafter, as employee

      3

                                        P.L.B. 4505

                                        Award No

                                          Case N'o'te.

must have rendered compensated service on not less than seventy-five (75) days in the preceding calendar year. Claimant's application for the benefits was denied by the Carrier. On April 29, 1987, the organization presented this claim to the Carrier, complaining v£ the denial of Claimant's application. The Carrier denied the claim, explaining:
 According to the agreement, Mr. Smith did not qualify
 for sick pay in 1987. Rule 49 of the agreement states
 that an employee must have rendered not less than 75
 days in the preceding calendar year. Mr. Smith worked
 58 days under the B.R.A.C. in 1986.
 It has been the position of the Carrier, throughout the
 processing a£ this claim, that an employee is entitled to
 Supplemental Sickness Benefits under Rule 49 of the BRAC
 agreement only if that employee has rendered the requisite number
 o£ days of service, in a position represented by HRAC, in the
 calendar year preceding the demand.
 The organization disagrees. The Ozqqknization,points out
 that Rule 49(b) does net state that the qualifying service must
 have been in a position represented by HRAC. Rule 49(b) merely
 provides that the employee "must have rendered compensated
 service on not less than seventy-five (75) days . . . . There
 is no question that this refers to compensated service to the
 Carrier. However, according to the Organization, compensated
 service to the Carrier may include work in positions represented
 by organizations other than $RAC, arid Rule 49 does not
 specifically exclude such service,
 4
                                        P.L.B. 4505

                                        Award No. At

Case No. :4 The Carrier cites Third Division Award No. 24301 (Silagi, 1983). That case involved a claim for sick leave by a clerical employee under Article IX of the National Agreement of 1979. Article TX of the National Agreement abrogated an earlier version of Rule 49, stating in Section 1 (a)a

 Rules, agreements or practices, however established, on the individual railroads providing for any type of sick leave are hereby amended so as to provide for a maximum of two (2) additional days of sick leave per year. Employees with ten but less than twenty years of service shall be entitled to one additional sick leave day per year. Employees with twenty or more years of service shall be entitled to two additional sick-leave days per year. The claimant in Third Division Award No. 24301 had eight years of service to the carrier, the Southern Railway Company, under BRAC and three years of service as a trainman. Accordingly, the carrier argued that he lacked the ten years of service required by Article IX to be eligible for one additional day of sick leave. The Third Division first examined.the sick leave agreement which had previously existed between seven carriers including the Southern Railway and HRAC,-and held:

    Throughout the Sick Leave Agreement the word

    "employee(s)" is used without further definition. It

    would seem logical, therefore, that by that term the

    parties intended only those classification represented

    by BRAC and none others. This approach is supported by

    the Agreement dated January 30, 1979 . . . (Ijn said

    Agreement, Article VII, Section 1(c) says that "Service

    in a craft not represented by the organization

    signatory hereto shall not be considered in determining

    periods of employment under this rule". While this

    rule relates to entry rates and service within the

    first 12 months of employment, nevertheless it is

                          5

                                        P.L.B. 4505 Award No.

                                          Case No.

indicative of the parties desire to differentiate between service under the BRAC contract and service under some other organization's contract. The decision in Third Division Award No. 24301, therefore, turns upon language in two agreements other than the one at issue in this claim. However, the Carrier argues that the reasoning of that award should apply here. The Carrier asserts that, as in that case, it is logical to conclude that the parties here meant the term "compensated service" to refer only to service in classifications represented by BRAC. The Carrier further asserts that, as in Award No. 24301, there is language in a national agreement which is indicative of the parties' intention to encompass only BRAC service in Rule 49. The Carrier refers to Rule 51(g) of the parties' national vacation agreement which, after setting forth a schedule of vacation allowances tied to days of compensated service and years of continuous service, statess

 Service rendered under agreements between a carrier and one or more of the Non-Operating organizations parties to the General Agreement of August 21, 1954, or to the General Agreement of August 19, 1960, shall be counted in computing days or compensated service and years of continuous service for vacation qualifying purposes under this Agreement. According to the Carrier, Rule 51(g) shows that the parties are able to explicitly permit the use of service under one agreement to qualify an employee for benefits under another agreement, when they intend such a result.

                          6

                                          P.L.S. 4505

                                        Award No . ~,.

Case No.4t However, other awards have not found such arguments compelling. In Third Division Award No. 23065 (Sickles, 1980), the Hoard hold-that the literal wording of Rule 49 must be controlling:
    We do confess that the issue is not clear cut and susceptible of easy determination, However, in the final analysis, we continue to return to the language of the rule which is before us. Rule 49 states, in Paragraph (b), that subject to certain conditions employes who have been in "continuous service o£ the Carrier" fox the period of time as specified will be allowed certain sick leave compensation. Thereafter, the rule refers to length of service and benefit days per year, and immediately thereafter the Agrement contains the qualifying language which includes the reference to 75 days.


Thus, it appears that the parties who negotiated the
 Agreement were talking in terms of continuous service
 "with the Carrier" and not merely service under the
 specific Agreement. Such a conclusion is certainly not
 inconsistent with potential equities . . . .
 Likewise, in Third Division Award No. 26493 (Vernon 1988), the
 Board reached the same conclusion, despite- the carrier's argument
 contrasting the vacation agreement with the agreement on sickness
 benefits. According to Award No. Ar26493, Rule 49 need not
 necessarily be construed to bar combining an employee's service
 in more than one craft, just because the vacation agreement
 specifically permits doing so.
 Award No. 23065 provoked a vigorous dissent from the Carrier
 members. However, the facts in that case were more troublesome
 than in this case. According to the Carrier's dissent in Award
 23065, the claimant had already received fifteen days' sickness
 7
                                        P.L.B. 4505

                                        Award No. LL-

Case No. .04 benefits in the year of the claim, under the agreement covering the position in which he had worked the majority of the previous year. Thus, the dissenters objected, the award would permit him

 to add bernetitr: under one agreement to those under another and
thereby exceed the maximum benefits allowed under either. No evidence has been presented in this claim that Claimant has

 received sickness benefits for 1987 under the IBBW agreement, or that granting this claim will allow him to receive benefits
 exceeding the maximum allowed under either.
 Nor does granting this claim allow Claimant or any employee to pick and choose among the benefits provided by any of several agreements under which he may hold seniority. Claimant is
 seeking sickness benefits under the BRAC agreement for time he missed while assigned as a clerk. At any moment, an employee

 should be limited to claiming benefits under the agreement under which he is currently assigned. The Third Division found this
 important in Award No. 26943, indicating that the Board would look critically upon a situation where the claimant was
      "cherry-picking benefits" or in other words . . .

      seeking sickpay -- for which he was qualified under the

      Clerks -- to apply [to3 time lost as a Dispatcher.

In short, since the expressed language of Rule 49 supports the organization's contention, and since the equities of the case do not militate against it, the claim in this matter should be sustained. To do so is especially appropriate in this case which

                          8

                                          2.L.B. 4505

                                          Award No. y

                                            Case No~`"~.

    involves a merged seniority roster which the Carrier has agreed to, in order to permit employees at Tampa to bid back end forth betweeen positions represented by BRAC and those represented by ISM Xn theme circumstances, it is apporpriAte to allow ouch an employee to use total service to the Carrier in the preceding year, meaning service under both BRAC and IBEW, to qualify for any benefits provided by the agreement under which he i5 then working. Otherwise, employees would be discouraged from bidding back and forth between the organizations, just the opposite of the result the parties desired. The cases cited by the carrier do not contradict this reasoning.


                          AWARD


        Claim sustained.


              Lamont E. 5tallworth, Neutral member

                                                  '-


~::L :,ryjlt~Cc ~ C~ ~? l ~.
 W. x. Miller , ' Employe Member J. VP. Ar~edge4Carrzer Member

 Dated this ~5~ day of ~upuS i , 1991__

 9