in Rule 9, but simply states, in effect, that preference will be given employes filing applications for positions bulletined in other districts who have complied with the time limits of Rule 9, as compared with applications received from non-employes. The Office of the Chief Engineer is a single seniority district, which has but one seniority roster; consequently the provisions of Rule 9 (b) were inoperative in respect of the bulletining of the position in question.

"2. It is the position of the Carrier that the vacancy in question was properly bulletined by the Chief Engineer, in accordance with Rule 9 (a); that no applications for the vacancy were received by the Chief Engineer from any employes in the seniority district composing his office, or any other seniority district, within the time limits specified in Rule 9 (a); that the position was properly awarded to Mrs. Taylor, a non-employe; and that the claim of the Brotherhood, in behalf of Miss Sue Ford is not supported by the Rules of the agreement, and should therefore be denied. In this connection, it is suggested that especial attention be given Carrier's Exhibit `O; which is a copy of a letter written the General Chairman of the Brotherhood by the General Superintendent of the Carrier, on April 10, 1939, summarizing the salient points of the case, and expressing the reasons of the Carrier for declining the claim."

There is in evidence an agreement between the parties bearing effective date of January 1, 1938.

OPINION OF BOARD: The disposition of this claim is governed by Rules 9 and 25 of the Agreement. Under Rule 9 employes desiring the temporary vacancy involved were required to file their applications therefor within two calendar days of the date of the posting of the bulletin. This requirement, covering by its terms all new positions and vacancies other than those expressly excepted, was also applicable, under Rule 25, to employes filing applications for positions bulletined on other seniority districts. Since the bulletin in this case was posted on the morning of August 26th, the specified two calendar days, in conformity with the express wording of the rule, did not expire till midnight of August 28th. It appears, however, that Mrs. Taylor, a non-employe, was actually appointed to the position on the morning of August 28th, before the expiration of the two calendar days, and probably, indeed, before the expiration of forty-eight hours from the time the bulletin was first posted. Since the carrier thus violated the provisions of Rule 9, and since it actually had Miss Ford's application before it on the morning of August 29th while the bulletin of assignment to Mrs. Taylor was not posted till August 30th, the carrier cannot be heard to complain that Miss Ford's application, mailed early in the afternoon of August 28th, a Sunday, did not actually reach the official whose name was signed to the original bulletin till the morning of August 29th. Under these circumstances the provisions of Rule 25, dealing with the carrier's choice among applicants, came into play. This rule provides that "employes filing applications for positions bulletined on other districts will, if they possess sufficient fitness and ability, be given preference on a seniority basis over non-employes and/or employes not covered by these rules." Mrs. Taylor was a non-employe who had no seniority rights under the current Agreement; Miss Ford was a furloughed employe from another seniority district. Miss Ford, therefore, whose fitness and ability was not questioned, should have received the appointment, and the assignment of Mrs. Taylor to the position constituted a violation of Rule 25.

FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, after giving the parties to this dispute due notice of hearing thereon and upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:

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

AWARD