From the outset, item 2 is a request for injunctive relief, an act beyond the jurisdiction of this Board. If the claim is sustained, how the Carrier reacts is beyond the control of this Board. Item 2 is therefore dismissed.

Regarding Item 1 and the Organization's arguments, it is this Board's position that the claim is without merit.

The requirement for bulletins pursuant to the Agreement has been fulfilled by the Carrier. They list the headquarters, the assigned hours, the assigned rest days, etc.

1n this dispute, the headquarters is listed as Northtown Yards which, apparently, has never been challenged by the Organization. The Northtown Yards handle inbound and outbound trains with the starting point for those working the outbound trains being; approximately one mile from the starting point for those working the inbound trains.

For whatever reason, the Foreman directed both Claimants to work the outbound trains, removing them from the inbound service. This, according to the Organization, violated a long-standing custom of selecting which service each Carman preferred, but only with the concurrence of the Foreman.

In this instance, the Foreman did not concur, but this non-concurrence was not in violation of the Bulletin Rule. The Claimants still were working the same hours of the job they bid on, enjoying the rest days of that job, all of which was accomplished at the headquarters point, all correctly stated in the bulletin.

The Carrier has not violated Rule 13 by assigning Carmen's work in the manner described in this dispute. A long-standing practice does not change the language of the Agreement Rules. Only negotiation can accomplish that.

AWARD