(American Train Dispatchers Association
 PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
 (George P, Baker, Richard C, Bond, Jervis Langdon, Jr.,
 ( and Willard Wirtz, Trustees of the Property of
 ( Penn Central Transportation Company, Debtor

 STATEMENT OF CLAIM; Claim of the American Train Dispatchers Association that:

 (a) The Penn Central Company, (hereinafter referred to as "the Carrier"), violated the currently the Pennsylvania Railroad Company (predecessor to Penn Central) and the American Train Dispatchers Association, Regulation 2-B-1-(e) of Part I thereof in particular, WHEN: after a t of thirty (30) days (from July 15, 1970 to August 13, 1970); it failed to bulletin said position in accordance with Regulation 2-B-1 (a) as provided in Regulation 2-B-1 (e).

 (b) Because of said violation, Carrier shall now be required to compensate Claimant D. J. Harpat






(c) Carrier shall now also be required to compensate Claimant W, L. Kiel in the following manner:

 1. In accordance with Regulation 4-D-1 (a), payment for automobile expenses of ,09 cents per mile for the 160 miles per day which he was required to travel from Altoona, Pennsylvania to Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania on September.3, September 4, September 5, September 6, September 7, September.lO,.September 11, September 12, September 13, September 14, September 17,-September 18, September 19, September 20, end September 21, 1970,

 2. In accordance with Regulation 4-D-1(a) eight (8) hours at punitive rate of pay for September 3, September 4, September 5, September 6, September 10, September 11, September 12, September 13, September 17, September 18, September 19 and September 20, 1970.


          3. In accordance with Regulation 4-C-1 (a) eight (8) hours at punitive rate of pay for September 7, September 14, and September 21, 1970,


          4. In accordance with Regulation 4-B-1 (b) eight (8) hours at pro rata rate of pay for September 9 and September 16, 1970,


          OPINION OF BOARD: Carrier takes exception to the consolidation of the two claims

          in this matter into one case before this Board and argues that

          ouch handling is inconsistent with the intent of Section 3, First (i) of the Rail

          way Labor Act and Circular No. 1 of this Board. We find no merit in this conten

          tion; consolidation of claims such as these should be encouraged since it permits

          more expeditious handling and avoids an unnecessary multiplicity of cases (Award

          12424).


          From August 24, 1970 through September 9, 1970 Claimant Harpster (at his request) was assigned as Train Dispatcher to a temporary vacancy on first trick in Altoona, Pa. with rest days on Sunday and Monday. On September 10 he returned to his regular position as Train Dispatcher on second trick, Section C, at Altoona with rest days of Monday and Tuesday.


          The Third trick Train Dispatcher (D. F. Hysong) on Section C, Altoona (rest days Wednesday and Thursday) did not work his regular assignment starting July 15, 1970, because of other temporary assignments. Carrier failed to bulletin this vacancy until September 9, 1970,


                Regulation 2-B-1 (e) of the Agreement reads:


                "In the event that such temporary position or vacancy continues in existance after the expiration of thirty (30) days it will be bulletined as provided in Regulation 2-B1 (a)."


          Claimant Harpster was the successful bidder and was awarded the position effective September 18, 1970, Part (a) of the claim, relating to the Carrier's failure to bulletin the position promptly, is conceded by Carrier. Part (b) of the claim alleges that Claimant Harpater is entitled to twenty day's pay far the period August 24, 1970 through September 13, 1970 on the basis that had Carrier bulletined the vacancy in timely fashion he would have been awarded and assigned the position during this period. Rates of pay for second and third trick Train Dispatchers were the same and Petitioner acknowledges that Claimant Harpater's earnings were actually greater during the claim period than they would have been had he worked the vacancy claimed.


          The Organization argues that Claimant Harpater was required to work a trick and days other than those which would have been his under proper assignmv since the Carrier failed to handle the matter under the applicable terms of the


          _ . ».

                  Award Number 19750 Page 3

                  Docket Number TD-19751


Agreement. Without citing a specific regulation, petitioner asserts that the Claim is supported by the Agreement. It is further argued that when there is a contract violation there must be an adequate remedy. Although there have been Awards to the contrary, we hold that those Awards which find that the Board may not impose a penalty, unless expressly provided for in the Agreement, should be affirmed (Awards 10963, 6385, 14508, 14110, 13958 and others). In this case, however, the Agreement does include a rule which deals with monetary claims; Regulation 7-B-1 (a), in its last paragraph reads in part as follows:

        "Any adjustment growing out of claims covered by this Regulation (7-B-1) shall not exceed in amount the difference between the amount actually paid to the claimant by the Company, and the amount he would have been p if he had been properly dealt with under this Agreement ...."


This Board is not empowered to rewrite the Agreement. In view of the clear and unambiguous language of Regulation 7-8-1 quoted above and the reasoning with respect to pe
Claimant Kiel was the incumbent Train Dispatcher on the third trick at Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania during the claim period. His claim (Part (c)) is baaei on a series of contentions: 1. The Carrier improperly failed to bulletin the third trick vacancy in Altoona in timely fashion; 2. Had the third trick vacancy been properly bulletined it would have begin assigned to Claimant Harpater effective August 24, 1970; 3. This would have resulted in a temporary vacancy in Claimant Harpster's second trick position, which would have been bulletined and awarded to Claimant Kiel effective September 3, 1970,

 Claimant Harpstar did not in face vacate his position until September 18, 1970, and hence there was no requirement to advertise the vacancy during the claim period. Petitioner's position xith rerpect to Claimant Kiel is wholly speculative and not supported by the Agreem.nt; Part (c) of the claim must be denied.

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


        That the parties waived oral hearing;


That the Carrier and the Employee involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and Employee within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934;
                  Award Number 19750 Page 4

                  Docket Number TD-19751


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

        That the Agreement was violated.in accordance with Opinion.


                      A W A R D


        Paragraph (a) of the Claim is sustained.


        Paragraphs (b) and (c) of the Claim are denied.


                          NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                          By Order of Third Division


ATTEST:
        Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 11th day of May 1973.