"Claim-of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:

(1) The Carrier violated the Agreement when it failed and refused to afford Mr. M. Evans, Jr. a seniority date on the SouthRail Foreman's Seniority Roster as of April 20, 1994 (Carrier's File 013.31-492 SRL).

(2) As a consequence of the violation referred to in Part (1) above, the Carrier

shall allow Mr. M. Evans, Jr. a seniority date of April 20, 1994 on the

SouthRail Foreman's Seniority Roster."

The Board, upon the whole record and on the evidence, fords that the parties herein are Carrier and Employees within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as amended; that this Board is duly constituted by agreement of the parties; that the Board has jurisdiction over the dispute, and that the parties were given due notice of the hearing.

Bulletin No. 159, dated April 20, 1994, awarded Claimant the position of Utility Track Foreman on Mobile Gang No. 288. There is no dispute that he assumed the position at the first available opportunity. However, by bulletin dated May 27, 1994, Claimant was awarded the position of Heavy Machine Operator on Mobile Gang No. 257. As a result, Claimant worked only 27 calendar days in the Utility Track Foreman position. By letter dated June 22, 1994, Carrier informed Claimant that he had not established seniority as a Track Foreman. Thinking

that he had been disqualified, Claimant requested a hearing pursuant to Rule I5(b). Carrier wrote Claimant and denied him the requested hearing because, it said, Claimant had not been disqualified. Instead, Carrier went on to explain that Rule 18(a) required Claimant to work in the Utility Track Foreman position for thirty working days to qualify for the Foreman position.

In Carrier's view, since Claimant failed to hold the Foreman position for the full thirty day period, he did not qualify and, therefore, was not entitled to Foreman seniority. The Organization and Claimant, on the other hand, maintain that Claimant established Foreman seniority as of the date of his award to the Utility Track Foreman position, April 20, 1994, per Rule 12. Since Claimant was never formally disqualified, he retained the seniority.

The parties concede that the instant dispute is one of first impression between them. After careful consideration of the entire record, we find the evidence to weigh in favor of the Organization's position. Rule 12 reads, in pertinent part, as follows:

RULE 12

SENIORITY DATUM

(a) Persons entering the service will establish seniority when their

compensation starts. An employee will establish seniority in a group on which

seniority has not been previously established as of the date of the award to a

position in such group, in accordance with Rule 17, provided such employee

assumes such position at the first available opportunity.

*+*