(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks, (Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (Lehigh Valley Railroad Company, Debtor

(a) Carrier violated the Agreement between the parties when, by bulletin dated December 11, 1969, it reduced the regularly assigned position of Janitor, Buffalo, New York, from five (5) days per week to three (3) days per week; and,

 (b) Carrier further violated the Agreement when, by bulletin dated December 11, 1969, it created an unauthorized position of Janitor bulletined to work three (3) days per week at Buffalo, New York (Monday-Wednesday-Friday) and two (2) days per week (Tuesday-Thursday) at Suspension Bridge, New York. some thirty (30) miles distant from Buffalo, which position was not a relief assignment; and,

 (c) As result of said violations Carrier shall now be required to compensate Mr. F. J. Kosciszewski, his successor or successors, for the difference between the part- full time position of Janitor at Buffalo each week, commencing December 11, 1969, and continuing each week thereafter until the Janitor position at Buffalo is properly bulletined and assigned; and,

 (d) Carrier shall also restore all rights which Employe F. J. Kociszewski, C. R. Veguillas or successor(s), may have been wrongfully deprived of as result of the as shown in Advertisement No. 3255 dated December 11, 1969.

 OPINION OF BOARD: Prior to December 11, 1969, a janitor position was main
 tained by Carrier at Buffalo, assigned to work at Tifft
 Terminal and Dingens Street, which was a 5-day regular position. Under date
 of December 11, 1969, Carrier advertised a position of Janitor to work 3 days
 per week at Buffalo and 2 days at Suspension Bridge, a point the Organization
 claims is 30 miles from Buffalo.

 It is the Organization's contention that the Bulletin is an unauthorized and illegal attempt to crea claims that it violated the Agreement, particularly Rule 21 thereof. The position the Organization further maintains is not a regularly assigned relief position.


Carrier raises two procedural issues which it contends ahould bar the claim. However, we find that Carrier abandoned its contention that Rule 33 was not complied with when the Organization failed to submit the claim to the proper Carrier officer. Furthermore, there was no material variation in the claim as it was handled on the property and Carrier was not misled by the slight variation. Thus we will proceed to a determination on the merits.
violated the Agreement when it builetined the assismment as it did. Tifft
 Terminal and Suspension Bridge are both within the Buffalo Seniority District,
 on which claimant holds seniority and Carrier adhered to the Agreement in
 bulletining the assignment. We do not agree with the Organization's con
 tention that Rule 21 was violated because the assignment in question did not
 have the same point for beginning and ending the tour of duty every dav.
 The Organization, we feel has misinterpreted Rule 21. It is not the function
 of this Board to adjudicate disputes on the basis of equity, fairness or
 hardship. We are restricted to the interpretation and application of cnl( i
 bargaining agreements. We do not believe that the Agreement in question was
 violated. To hold otherwise, we would be rewriting Rule 21. Such is bevonr4 t
 jurisdiction of this Board.
 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




        Claim denied.


                        NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                        By Order of Third Division


ATTEST:
        Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 20th day of December 1972.