It is the position of Carrier that the claim as here presented to the Board dating from December 4, 1951 is without basis under the applicable rules of the governing agreement, and that it should accordingly be denied.

The substance of matters contained herein has been the subject of discussion in conference and/or correspondence between the parties.

(Exhibits not reproduced.)

OPINION OF BOARD: On October 16, 1951, Carrier bulletined a temporary vacancy in the position of Agent-Telegrapher at Dilley, Texas. The following language appeared in the bulletin as to the reason for and duration of the vacancy:

"(C. J. Jones laying off account illness) Probable duration 30 days or longer, account illness of C. J. Jones."

The position was bid in by Claimant, who was regularly assigned as telegrapher in "MS" office, San Antonio; he began service on the temporary vacancy on October 26. The temporary vacancy was bulletined and filled in accordance with Rule 3 (h), set out in full in the submission, the pertinent section of which reads:

"Successful applicants under this section will not be permitted to return to their regular positions until the expiration of the time limit specified in the bulletin unless the regular occupant of the position resumes duty prior to the expiration of his leave. Provided that when a permanent vacancy occurs in any position it shall be bulletined as provided in Section (e) of this rule, regardless of any temporary assignments made or bulletins issued."

Jones, the regular occupant of the Dilley position never did recover from his illness but applied for and was granted a pension under the Railroad Retirement Act because of it. Consequently, the position was bulletined on November 24, 1951 as a permanent vacancy under Rule 3(e) and was awarded to the senior applicant, J. C. Mathis, on December 4. Mathis, however, did not begin work on his new position until January 15, 1952. The delay rom December 4 until January 9 was due to Carrier's failure to relieve him on his former position, and from January 9 to January 15 for his own convenience. Claimant was required to remain on the Dilley position until Mathis reported the claim is for the difference between what Claimant earned at Dilley and what he would have earned on his regular position between December 5 and January 15, plus actual necessary expenses during the same period.

Rule 3 (h) is clear enough as applied to the normal situation of a temporary vacancy caused by an employe's going on leave and returning to his position when his leave expires or prior thereto. In such a situation, the employe who bids in the temporary vacancy must continue to work the temporary position until the regular occupant returns. The difficulty in the case before us is that the regular occupant never did return as contemplated by the rule. We think the intention of the role is to require an employe who bids in a temporary vacancy to remain there until the expiration of the time specified, or, if the duration is indefinite, until the circumstance causing the vacancy has come to an end. In this case, the duration was indefinite but was specifically related to the illness of Jones. Jones' retirement was due to his illness and the vacancy in his position therefore continued to be related to his illness until it was assigned to Mathis. After that time, the vacancy was not caused by the illness of Jones but by, the unavailabilty of Mathis, which was not a condition affecting the duration of the temporary vacancy at the time it was bid in by Claimant. Under the rule as applied to the particular circumstances of this case, Claimant bad the duty to remain on the position at Dilley until it was awarded to Mathis. After that time, he had a right to return to his regular position. He is therefore entitled to be placed in the same position as if he had been so returned, as requested in the claim.

That the Agreement was violated.

AWARD