PARTIES TO DISPTJTE:

            Brotherhocd of Locomotive Engineers


                        and


              Nor=olk Southern Railway Company


STAA7,EMENJ ,OF CLA IM
      Claim on behalf of V_'r;_n:.a Division Engineer S. J. Hall protesting his staid=ng on the Blue Ridge District Seniority Roster.


OPI,IIOIg OF THE BOP_RD :

 This is a Seniority case. The issue framed for decision is the protest of Claimant Engineer for his proper placement on the Blue Ridge District Senic=:.=-r Roster for Engineers. The very narrow question is whethez C,la_mant was properly positioned on the Engineer's roster be'.^_^_'n^? otter employees who were junior in trainmen seniority, but wnc .men t to Locomotive Engineer Training (LET) school ahead of him, and began work as Engineers after their completion of train-ng. '"he reason for the so called runaround was the Claimant h=d. .pus tai zed a shoulder injury on March 25, 1995, and was unable co work for a period of time thereafter. When he was finally cleared for return to duty, he was not medically cleared for grc=c se=vice. He was thereafter sent to the first available LET class, which began on or about April 1998. He completed his LET c=a-ning and was placed on the Engineer' s roster on Apri_" --'_, , °99 .

 The gist of Petitioner's complaint is that Claimant, through no fault of his own, was nc= able to participate in earlier LET classes, because of his o_^_-tUt-r injury, therefore Carrier should consider such an event a ccs.t=:,~.ting =actor in assigning seniority.

 With -cerf°ect candor, ---°_ Pat'.t?oner makes an appaal:.n.y
 rpCUeSt for 'JUS'* 'G3w=:'er. :t..`.3 i5 not a Board of Equity.
 The Board' S function urder `<®®e Railway Labor Act. ? S to intee=rew
 and acoi·r Agravmenrs i n a====a'a---c-= with their terms. In this!

 d-` re--':s :-= Jcard's attention to the
                    SEA 1063

                                        Case No. 370

                                        Award No. 370

                                        Page Two


plainly state the seniority date "shall be the date of his (herJ first service as engineer". In short, it is the 8LE contract that determines seniority as an Engineer, so other contractual. provisions covering ground service employees must be harmonized with those provisions.

 It was an unfortunate `urn of events that prevented Claimant from entering and completing his LET training and first performance of Engineer's service, which is the event that
 triggers Engineer seniority entitlement. Thus, it is the contract that controls our disposition, so the claim must be denied.

 The Agreement was not violated.

 Dated at Norfolk, Virginia, this jAz.Lday of , 2001.

                          F. E ker, Ne ral Member


                            s YY

                        a. R. Weaver, Carrier ember


      . 'ZT~ ~l


                        P. T. Sorrow, organization Member


Carrier File: