Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 7674
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 7460
 2-MP-EW-·78



Parties to Dispute: ( (Electrical Workers)


Dispute: Claim of Employes:



Findings:
The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that:

 The carrier or carriers and the employe or employes involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employe within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 1934.

 This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.

On March 1, 1974, the Carrier issued Bulletin #1 to replace a Division Traveling Electrician due to retirement. It was clearly established that the Carrier failed to post such Bulletin at its Settegast Diesel Shops which was a facility within the Seniority District (the DeQuincy Division) where such job was being filled. On March 16, 1974, Bulletin #2 was issued indicating no bids were received as a result of Bulletin #1 and that an assignment was being made. On May 6, 1974, a claim was made on behalf of the Claimants as stated herein.

 The Carrier contends the claim is untimely in that its date of effectuation exceeds the sixty-day limitation set forth in Rule 31 - Time Claims and Grievances. While this may be supportable by a literal review of the dates of the dates involved, the fact remains that the Claimants could hardly
 Form 1 Award No .7674
 Page 2 - Docket No. 7460
 2-MP-EW-'78

 have known a violation existed in that the Bulletin was not posted. This is not altered by the showing that the appropriate Union official was on distribution for the Bulletin and may well have received it at some point thereafter. The obligation rested upon the Carrier to post the Bulletin; the events that thereafter followed are sufficient to establish the timeliness of the Claim.

 Insofar as the Claim itself, it deals only with the matter of compensation claimed by "C.P. Hargraves and twenty-five (25) other electricians." The record sufficiently shows that each and all such Claimants were employed during the period involved (this case is in tandem with another involving the abolishment of this position and its reposting in another district, which is not part of this case; however, it does act to potentially limit the period of this claim); it is also indicated in the record that the compensation of the Traveling Electrician is not greatly in excess, if in excess at all, of the Claimants.

 Finally, the language of the Claim would indicate only a demand for compensation and not that the position should be posted.

 We find the Carrier in error by not posting the Bulletin at the Settegast Diesel Shop March 1, 1974. We do not find, however, that such violation of the Agreement carries with it any basis for compensation in that no losses of remuneration has been established by the Organization and there was no indication of a desire to bid the job as part of the claim; it follows that there was no claim of lack of opportunity, either.




                          By Order of Second Division


Attest: Executive Secretary
        National Railroad Adjustment Board


      By semarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant


      Dated t Chicago, Illinois, this 29th day of August, 1978.