Foam J_ NATIOS;YkL RAILROAD ADJUST~`~EIIT BOARD Award No. 7810"
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 7'T48
 2-BNI-EW-t79

( Systezn Federation No. 7, Railway Employes'
 ( De,partment, A. F. of L. - C. I. 0.
 Parties to Dispute: l ~ (Electrical workers)

 ( Burlington ^Toxthern Inc.

 Dispute: Claim of Emnloyes:












Findinms:

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

 The carrier o ^ carriers and the earl oye or eir~ployes involved in th;.s dispute are respectively c:.xrrwer and eY:,:pl oye within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 193..

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

Claimant eras first esmp7_oyed by Carrier as crew groundman on July 27, 1976 at i;ozYthtcwn, Minnesota. lie was latex notified by letter dated r Se,pteraber 20, 1910 "pat his applicavon fox er:plely%ment eras not accepted.

 C7_airxac-rt argues ti.at Carrier violated the second half of Agree.nent i-;ale 31, which reads, "'n::i'ther shall an employee be d`.scuarged pox any cause without first being given an investigation" by not pro vida_t:g him vi th th-
 s proceeding . I-Ie contends that Carrier's supervisor,;- officials were Prejudicial toward hi:n.
 Form 1 Award No. 7816
 Page 2 Docket No. 778
 2-BNI-EW-'79

 Contra-vise, Carrier asserts that its termination decision was predicated upon evaluation considerations and accordingly consistent with the requirements of Agreement Rule 33, which provides in pertinent :art that, "If application is not d'.sa.noroved z~rithizl sixty (60) days of commencement of service, employee's name will be placed on the seniority roster of regular employees with a seniority date as of the first day of service and e:n;~loyee .r1 11 not thereafter be subject to dismissal except for cause, a:. provided by Rule 30.'1 It avers that his on the job pexwl'ormance was unsatisfactory.

 In considering this case we cannot, of course, disregard the relevancy of acceptable contract construction principles. It is relatively easy for one side or the otter to pick and choose particular corAC.;.m,ct lanqzaae and C1'di1T. a S~'`('C1y:ic interpretation. But a collective bargainingnt represents a detailed document covering the panties' detailed employment relationship. In most cases, agreement l.angua ~e is clear and unaOlguous. In other cases, tire iznCent of a disputed provision can be discerned by observable and institutionalized t:e='.st practice, a n the instant case, it is quite possible to construe tAe second half of 1;1:1e 31 to co,port with Claimant's positional izitexpieLetiol. But ne ?r;st conse.der the factual specifics of this case within the context of closely related agreement language.

 Claimant had been employed fifty eight ( 58 ) days wien he was informed
 of 111.5 dismissal. His employment application was not aUy?'OVE'.do Agreement
 Eule 33 (sapra) permits this determination. There are no i:r_pl_ement:1.nL7,
 specifications or :e.deni,:if iable past practices requiring the delineation of
 reasons for this decision. Carrier 1;w5 a contractual V EM during tine
 sixty (60) day period to reject eST:r.~1oy::.ent applications. If it unwittingly
 .'1i· _ ._.
 forfeits to e:rrercs_se this right b:-fore tire end of the sixty: (60) days period, the application is automatically validated.

 Agreement Rate 30 (Ii`'%'.rSTIGA!-i'.IOTM ) requires that "An employee in service more than sixty (60) dales will not be disciplined on dismissed until after a fair and impartial investigation has been held". It is explicit la.nr;uae. Claimant, in this instance, was employed fifty eight (58) days, not sixty (60) days. He would thus not be entitled to an investigation under this provision.

 Under agreement TW le 31 (Establishing Competency) an e:~.plo;,ree who has been in tY!e serv:i_ce of Carrier :r_~o're than sixty (60) days ;~rould. riot '::e dismissed for incompetency. This criterion is patently di.stinLuish_o,b1e from discipline or dismissal actions. An a?rpJ_oyee, hoi;evr::r, could be dismissed for incompetency, if he worked less than sixty ( 6G) days. The second half' of. this provision (supra) z~rhich Claimant relies upon, conflicts with the explicit lar=naJe of Rule 30, the basic and clear intent of hole 33 and the first half of Pule 31.

 In all these provisions, a sixty (E.0) day requirement governs the validation of an employment application, the initiation o;° an investigation
 Form 1 Award No. 7°16
 Page 3 Docket No. 77'+8
 2-BTTT-fW-' l9

 fox disciplined ox dismissal reasons and non-dismissal for :inco:,.petenctr. They
 provide, in essence, an interrelated f ramezYork .for those eventuwlit i es. 1a
 1S an axiomatic cm-tract COnS'GrU.Ct10n 1':X'iTlCiple tt.at a wzi.tinshould be
 COT1StrLled as a whole with particular clauses sLZbex-.iinated to the general
 intent. We notice in this case the p.resui:vp'iive inconsistency between t.~e
 second half of F'.-ale 31 and Ra:.1e 30, but the spedf lc langua-e on: the 1 at tet
 ,provisions when r- ad within the interpret; ve context of the other Bales
 disposes of the civestion.

 Claimant was not charged with a specr:C':ic act o?° an omiss_i oas he ryas, instead, consider2i an utjsati_f a.ctor;,r e~:az!..oyEe during his s_~.''6;,r (v0) d,a~.ptobst-7.or:a:°y pez~roc?. It -vra.s a fitness or car.yei,enc~r det.exw='i;aaion. I,heT.tz;_r Or nCt 1t .i-as bazed on :1erZ.tO't:iOuS OJ:jf:^t'ive cons idC1'w:,t1.0=15' or an ~.X _t?OS'i~ facto ra'Lionaliza.t:i.on is i-:_:aterial_ at tv:i.s point; since i t -,~as,renc.efwed within the sixty (v0) day period ,proviacd by the a,rreerrent.
,recd fy what tt.i gh':; ap.pear to be a_usstvonal=le decisions. We va:i 11 deny tpe
 claim.






Attest: Executive Secretary
 National railroad 11djustment Taard

      v_~,...A~u._,~d

      .. .~ ~;~,- ...-~.,x: v>.


                    °°~."""'.~

                          IVI


J
      c~;;naxie ?3~wsch - ~,cz~: .i tni strat~w4~ ~ ssa_utant

        k.

        a


Dated atfChica~o, Illinois, this 10th dray of Januar;,r9 19`T9·