OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant W. F. Smith entered the Carrier's service at Detroit on February 12, 1954. At the time the subject dispute arose he held the position of Inspector at Willard, Ohio. On May 21, 1962 the Carrier issued Claimant Smith written notice of an investigation to be held on May 25, 1962 on the charge of "insubordination". During the course of the investigation Carrier stated that the basis for the "insubordination" charge was the contention that Claimant had displayed an "uncooperative attitude" and had refused "to impart necessary and vital information requested by Mr. ONeill on the morning of May 7, 1962". The subject Carrier (FG&E) provides refrigerator cars and related protective services for the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad at Willard and S. A. ONeill is B&O Trainmaster at that location.
Following the investigation the Carrier gave Claimant Smith written notice of indefinite suspension from his position at Willard, effective at the conclusion of Claimant's vacation June 17, 1962. Carrier further advised that Claimant would be allowed to bid "on any vacant or new position bulletined on or after June 17, 1962 at any station in your seniority district other than Willard, Ohio". Carrier also advised that if and when Claimant is awarded a position at some other station he would be considered as under probation for one year.
A claim protesting the subject disciplinary action was duly filed and progressed to the Board. Meanwhile, in November 1962 Claimant Smith bid and was awarded the advertised position of Icing Foreman-Inspector at Cincinnati. He began working in this position on December 1, 1962.
The evidence of record does not support the insurbordination charge which Carrier made against the Claimant. We therefore will sustain Parts 1, 2 and 4 of the claim. There is no sound ground for upholding Part 3 of the claim, however. On June 18, 1962 and on subsequqent dates prior to the time Claimant was awarded the aforesaid position in Cincinnati, a total of eleven positions were bulletined in the seniority district at locations other than Willard, Ohio. Claimant could have bid on these other positions but he did not do so. Since he did not seek to obtain any of these available jobs, we do not think he should be compensated for the wage loss which he could have avoided. With respect to the reference in Part 3 to "loss of any other benefits and all expenses incurred", no evidence of such loss and expense is presented in the record. It is therefore unnecessary for us to consider whether the Agreement authorizes the Board to grant the requested relief regarding benefits and expenses.
FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:
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