Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 8852
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 8913-T
 2-MP-EW-182
 The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Herbert L. Marx, Jr. when award was rendered.
 International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
 Parties to Dispute:
 ( Missouri Pacific Railroad Company

 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, 193+.

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

The Firemen and Oilers were advised of a possible third party interest, but declined to intervene.

 On October 11, 1978 the Carrier issued Bulletin No. 127 asking for bids on the position of Crane Operator (Job No. ~--'10). The Bulletin included the following information:



Bids were received from three Electricians, the most senior of which was C. G. Gallagher, the Claimant herein. Bids were also received from two employes in the Laborers' craft, one of whom was S. G. Hamilton. As noted above, Hamilton was riding the bulletin since October 11, 1978 (for which there is a separate claim, see Award No. 8851, considered simultaneously with this dispute by the Board).
 Form 1 Award No. 8$52
 Page 2 Docket No. 891 3-T
 2-MP-EW-'82

 The organization argues that Gallagher was denied the position in violation of Rules 13 (a), 25 (a), and Classification of Work Rules 107 (a) and 108. The Carrier refers to Rule 13 (c). Pertinent excerpts fromthese rules are as follows:







Rule 25 (c) lists seniority rosters of various crafts (Machinists, Boilermakers, etc.) and includes:







Thai°,. ig no question but that "Crane Operator" is a separate seniority division (or "subdivision") as specified in Rule 25 (a) and (c). Thus, up to October 11, 1978 when the bulletin was posted, there was no one with seniority as Crane Operator at the specified location, other than the employe who was on illness leave. No Electrician among the bidders could claim that he held seniority as Crane Operator over any other employe.

 The rules for eligibility to bid, however, are different. Rule 13 (a) states that in the event of "vacancies in the respective crafts" (emphasis added), preference shall go to "the oldest employe in point of service. "Craft" here means "Electrical Workers" and subsumes various divisions including Crane Operator. "Oldest employe in point of service" by logic refers to employes in such crafts; this is something quite different from "seniority" in any of the ~xrious divisions.

 The Board therefore finds that the bulletin was properly posted, even in the absence of an employe with Crane Operator sen iority who might bid. Three employes, all in the Electrical Workers' craft, placed bids. Rule 13 (e) mandates shat the "oldest" employe (Gallagher) be selected.
 Form 1 Page 3

 Award No. 8852
 Docket No. 8913-f
 2-MP-EW-'82

 For the carrier to place an employe i.n the position on the date that the bulletin is posted and then declare that lie has, by this action alone, acquired Crane Operator seniority, would be to make Rule 13 (a) a nullity.

 The Carrier refers to Award No. 5575 (Ives) to define Crane Operator seniority. This award, however, concerns only the right to overtime work as between an available off-duty Crane Operator and a scheduled Electrician, and provides no guidance here.

 The Carrier also notes that the Organization considered Hamilton "as being obligated to pay dues to the IBEW" from 60 days of the date of his placement on the Crane Operator position on October 11, 1978. This is hardly acquiescence by the Organization. It simply means that: an employs, performing work of the Electrical Workers' craft -- as directed by the Carrier -- is subject to dues obligation, and nothing more.

 While the Carrier erred in its selection for t:he Crane Operator position, the remedy sought by the Organization is inappropriate. Although denied the position of Crane Operator, there is no showing that the Claimant lost wages as a result, since there is nothing to indicate that he failed to perform his assignment as Electrician.

 A W A R D

 Claim No. 1 sustained. The Claimant is to be awarded seniority as Crane Operator from October 18, 1973 and to be placed as such as if he had been awarded the "Temporary Position" in Bulletin No. 127.

 Claim No. 2 denied.

 Attest: Executive Secretary

NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

By Order of Sccond Division


By ~/ ` i~GD~~-~-,'

 _ o Adm:

Dn T11 ni., 6th day of January, 1982.
 ated at Chi in _
 .J..A t7hicago, Illinois, this