All matters growing out of the employes' request of February, 1940 have not yet been composed However, even in this presentation of the employes' request for a revision of the August, 1926 agreement they did not request that employes awarded bulletined positions and who are not assigned (actually placed) within the time limits provided for in the rules that they would be reimbursed for any differences that may be involved in living expenses. All they asked for was that they would be paid for wage loss suffered. There was no wage loss suffered in this case. The rate of pay attached to Mr. Craven's position at Alexandria was $6.29 per day, whereas rate of pay attached to position at Monroe was $5.84 per day or $0.45 per day less than the Alexandria position.

The Management feels that the employes' contentions should properly be denied, there being no rule to support such a claim.

OPINION OF BOARD: This docket presents the claim of H. L. Craven for alleged monetary loss sustained by him by reason of his having been retained on a position as clerk at Alexandria, La., for a period of ^r5 days after lie had been assigned, pursuant to his bid, on a bulletined position at Monroe, La. The position at Alexandria was rated at $6.29 per day; the position at Monroe $5.84 a difference of 45 cents per day. The monetary loss claimed represented the difference in living costs for the period between the two stations.

The employes base this claim chiefly on Rule 10. Paragraph (a) of the rule provides for the bulletining of vacancies and new positions for bids. Paragraph (b) of the rule provides as follows:

The employes insist that the clause, "an assignment will be made within five (5) days thereafter," means that the successful employe will be transferred to the new position immediately upon assignment. It seems clear that the "assignment" and transfer are two separate steps which the Carrier takes. It first bulletins the fact that the employe is assigned to the new position and then "transfers" him to the new position or releases him from the old position.

It is true that the rules provide no specific time for the second step, the "transfer." But without the "transfer" the "assignment" is a meaningless formality. If the Carrier may with impunity delay in making the transfer of the employe after he is assigned, it may deny him his seniority rights indefinitely. The entire system of bulletining positions and assigning employes according to seniority rights must have been set up in the Agreement on the understanding of the parties that the assigned employe would be transferred promptly to the new position. We are confirmed in this opinion by the statement of the Carrier in its submission that, "Under ordinary conditions the employe selected from the list of applicants for a vacancy is transferred to the position sought within five (5) days following date of receipt of bids."

Further confirmation of this construction of Rule 10 (b) is found 'n Rule 9, which provides that when an employe is awarded a permanent position on his bid, "his former position will be declared vacant and bulletined;" not at some future date, but when the new position is awarded to him, when he is assigned.

In Award No. 2174 we said: "We think assignment to a position, in contemplation of Rule 10, does not carry with it the right to immediate transfer to it. However, this does not leave the time of transfer to the caprice of the Carrier. The ransfer must be made within a reasonable time. What is a reasonable time must be determined from the facts and circumstances of the particular case." Under the facts and circumstances of that particular case it was felt that the Carrier had transferred the employe to the new position "as soon as was reasonably possible."

We do not feel that the Carrier has made such a showing in this case. The Carrier in its submission states that: "during recent months the lack of experienced clerical help account wartime conditions, it is not always possible to follow the practice that was in vogue in normal times under the rules when help, generally speaking, was readily available * ' * " The Carrier, neither in its submission nor in its answers to the employes' statements, makes any direct allegation as to the particular cause for the delay in this case, although the Chief Personnel Officer in his letter dated December 10, 1942, stated that the transfer was not made because there was no available competent labor. The record shows no attempt on the part of the Carrier to fill the position at Alexandria. It did not even declare the position vacant and bulletin it pursuant to Rule 9.

When the employes show any such delay in making the transfer, as is shown in this case, surely the burden should be on the Carrier to show that the transfer was made "as soon as was reasonably possible."

Nor can we agree with the contention of the Carrier that the employe in such a case is without any right of redress because, "The rule does not impose a penalty of any description whatever in event the applicant is not transferred" as soon as was reasonably possible.

The Agreement is the solemn contract of the parties resulting from their negotiations, governing the hours and working conditions of the employes covered thereby. Where an employe sustains a loss by reason of a violation of the Agreement by the Carrier, he must be compensated for such loss, even though no specific penalty is imposed by the rule violated. Where no specific penalty is named, the employe must be made whole. See Award No. 1324, Award No. 1711 and Interpretation No. 1 to Award No. 1711.

The employes contend that Rule 62 provides a principle which by implication furnishes a basis for computing the amount to which the claimant here is entitled. With this we cannot agree. The claimant here is only claiming the net loss sustained by reason of the difference in living costs between the two stations. We think the claimant is correct in only claiming his net loss and not claiming living expenses while held at Alexandria in violation of the Agreement.

In computing the net loss, the claimant should have allowed credit for the difference in rate between the two stations. The employes insist that this would amount to lowering the rate for the position at Alexandria. We are only making the claimant whole for his monetary loss in being held at Alexandria.

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

That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and

AWARD