PARTIES TO DISPUTE: BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE
 OF WAY EMPLOYEES
 -and
 CONSOLIDATED RAIL CORPORATION
 STATEMENT OF CLAIM:





FINDINGS:



That the Carrier and Employees involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and Employees within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 1934;




                                      Award I 9 (c


The material facts that led to this claim are not in dispute. On August 6, 7 and 8, 1996, Canton Shop Repairmen M. Hester and T. Howard attended training at the

Hamphfager Overhead Crane facility in Southgate, Michigan. These two Repairmen had routinely performed maintenance on the large overhead crane at the Canton Shop for the previous three years. They had requested training on the overhead crane.


On September 5, 1996, the Organization filed a claim and/or grievance on behalf of employee R. Ring and T. Crilley, two Repairmen who worked at the Canton Shop.

The Organization claimed that these two Repairmen were senior to the Repairmen who attended training on August 6, 7 and 8, 1996, and therefore they should have been given the opportunity for this training.


      The Carrier denied the claim and/or grievance contending that since neither

Claimant worked on the overhead crane at the Canton shop there was no reason to send them for training at the vendor's facility.


Contrary to the Organization's assertion, the Claimants did not have a contractual right to attend overhead crane training on August 6, 7 and 8, 1996. Rule 4 merely delineates how employees attain and accumulate seniority and how they may exercise their seniority. There is no reference in Rule 4 to an entitlement to training based on seniority.

Rule 17 gives preference to overtime to employees in the order of their seniority provided they are qualified and available for the overtime work. Rule 17 is inapposite to the dispute before this Board since the training on August 6, 7 and 8, 1996, did not

involve any overtime.

Rule 40 is also inapplicable to this dispute, in our opinion. Rule 40 states that the Organization and Conrail agree to comply with Federal and State Laws dealing with nondiscrimination. The Organization has not cited any Federal or State Law that grants

employees the right to training based on their seniority.

In our opinion, no provision of the parties' Agreement grants employees the right to attend training sessions based on their seniority. Therefore, the Agreement was not

violated when the Carrier did not send the Claimants to training at the Harnphfager

Overhead Crane facility since they did not work on the overhead crane at the Canton Shop.


The Organization asserts that Third Division Award No. 32439 is indistinguishable from the instant case but this Board respectfully disagrees. Unlike the Claimants who never maintained the overhead crane at he Canton Shop, it appears that the employee in Award No. 32439 did make engine repairs although he mW& repaired engine compressors at his request. Because of this, the Board concluded that that employee should have attended an engine repair training school attended by employees junior to him. This significant factual difference distinguishes that case from the one before us, in this Board's opinion.

                        2

                                          SBA 101(o

                                          Rwqrd 19 tc


For all the foregoing reasons, the claim must be denied since the Claimants did not have a contractual right to attend overhead crane training on August 6,7 and 8, 1996.

 AWARD: Claim denied.

                          Robert M. O'Brien, Neutral Member


                          Roy C Robinson, Employee Member


                          Dennis L. Kerby, Carrier Member


Dated:

 3