question as to when Local Chairman Giants Snyder had actually received a copy of the application filed by Mr. Morrison was considered to be of such little importance that it was not even developed by the Committee. The sole basis of their argument, as set forth in the "Supplemental Statement" filed by the BRSA in Docket SG-7060, was that:

In the award itself, the only reference is to the receipt of Morrison's application in the office of the Signal Supervisor.

It follows, therefore, that the Signalmen's Committee has considered the sole controlling factor in the handling of applications from a time standpoint to be receipt by the Carrier's officer, i.e., the Signal Supervisor or some other supervising officer, and not receipt by the Local Chairman.

The factual record in this case shows that Robert Ott's application was received by the Signal Supervisor before the closing time for receiving bids. It must, therefore, be concluded that it was a perfectly valid application. Being the senior applicant, Mr. Ott's assignment to the position in lieu of the assignment of Boyd Anderson, a junior man, was proper. The Carrier acted properly when it declined the claim coming from Mr. Anderson.

The Carrier submits that this claim should be declined on the following basis:

(a) Part (a) of the claim should be declined in the absence of any showing of any violation of the Signalmen's Agreement;

(b) Part (b) of the claim should be declined on a showing that Mr. Ott's application was proper and valid and that, therefore, Mr. Ott, and not Mr. Anderson, should have been assigned to the position of Signal Maintainer at Mt. Vernon, Ohio;

(c) Part (c) of the claim should be denied on a showing that the Carrier's action here was consistent with the rules appearing in the Signalmen's Agreement and that there is no support in the working rules whatever for the claim as made.

The Carrier submits that the claim in its entirety is without merit; the Carrier respectfully requests that this claim be declined in all its parts.

OPINION OF BOARD: The record in this case discloses that under date of August 20, 1956, "B" Bulletin S-715-56 was issued advertising that applications would be received up to 12 noon August 30, 1956 for the position of Signal Maintainer, Headquarters, Mt. Vernon, Ohio.

Applications were received from the following:

Robert Ott, Signalman, Gang No. 1, East Columbus, Ohio. Seniority Date 11-3-43.

Boyd Anderson, Signal Helper, Heath, Ohio, Seniority Date 9-8-44.

Robert Ott was awarded position of Signal Maintainer, Headquarters, Mt. Vernon, Ohio on Bulletin S-716-56 dated September 5, 1956.

It is the position of the Committee that at the closing time for receiving bids to Bulletin S-715-56 advertising for a Maintainer at Mt. Vernon, Ohio the senior applicant whose application was in the hands of both the designated officer of the company and the Local Chairman was Boyd F. Anderson and that Robert Ott's bid was not received by the Local Chairman until after the closing time for receiving applications, and that therefore it should not have been considered.

It is the position of the Carrier that the Signal Maintainer's position as advertised in Bulletin S-715-56 was properly assigned to Mr. Robert Ott in accordance with the Signalmans Agreement effective October 1, 1951.

We do not find any award by this Board between the parties under this Agreement having an analogous relationship to the facts and circumstances presented in this record.

In Award 7110 between the same parties the Board held that the Carrier violated the Agreement when it accepted an application after the closing time specified in the Bulletin and awarded the job to the applicant even though his application was not received by the Carrier within the time specified. In Award 7110 the question of timely receipt of a copy by the Local Chairman was not involved.

In Award Number 10172 between the same parties involving the same Rule 46(d) the claim was advanced on the premise that the withdrawal notice was not effective because of the Carrier's failure to furnish a copy thereof to the Local Chairman, however, in this Opinion the Board stated as follows:

"We are of the opinion that the rule does not require such notice be furnished the Local Chairman. We cannot speculate what the parties intended when the rule was negotiated. It is definite that at the time of negotiation the parties intended that such applications for positions be prepared in duplicate with one copy being furnished the designated officer of the Company, and the other copy to the Local Chairman.

"The only mention made in Rule 46 (d) as to withdrawals, is in the last sentence of the above rule.

"The Board does not have the authority to speculate as to what the parties intended when the rule was written. The parties could have readily made it clear that copies of all applications and withdrawals were required to be furnished the Local Chairman.

"The rule as written has no such requirement, and we find the claim as filed is without merit and should be denied."

"(d) All applications for bulletined positions shall be in writing on the forms provided by the Management for that purpose, bearing the personal signature of the applicant. They shall be prepared in duplicate and one copy forwarded to the designated officer of the

Company and the other copy to the Local Chairman. Except as provided in Rule 38(e), applications received after the closing time for receiving bids will not be considered. Withdrawal of applications must also be received before the closing time for receiving bids."

The exception provided in Rule 38(e) relates to Employes absent on leave and has no bearing on the issue in this case. From a careful study of this record, the provisions of the Agreement, and previous awards your Board cannot find that the contract was violated.

Our construction of the rule as written does not specify that a copy of the application be received by the Local Chairman within the time specified in the Bulletin and this Board does not have the authority to insert such a provision therein. The parties could have readily made it clear that applications received by the designated Officer of the Company, and the local Chairman after the closing time for receiving bids would not be considered, however, the rule as written has no such requirement and we necessarily find the claim as filed to be without merit and it should be denied.

FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:

That the parties waived oral hearing;

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

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

That the Carrier did not violate the Agreement as alleged.

AWARD