NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION

 Benjamin Rubenstein, Referee

 Award Number 19851
 Docket Number MW-19651

 (Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (Burlington Northern Inc. (formerly Spokane, Portland ( 6 Seattle Railway Company)

 STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:
by letter dated September 18, 1970 and received on September 21, 1970 was
 improper and in violation of the Agreement (System File F/MW-14 (L)-12
 11-70).

 8-21-70.

 (2) Mr. Odin Lein be allowed seniority as a pump repairer as of

 (3) Mr. Odin Lein be allowed the difference between the pump repairer's rate and the Assistant Pump Repairer's rate for each work day of the period of said disqualification (9-21-70 to 2-5-71).

 OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant was assigned to a temporary position of pump
 repairer on August 21, 1970. He worked until September
 11, when he went on vacation. On the day he left, he was, orally, advised
 that he did not qualify for the position. On September 21, he received a lette:
 by "certified mail", reasserting the verbal notice of September 11, 1970.

 The organization claims that the carrier violated the provisions of Rule 19 (Failure to Qualify) of the. Agreement, which Rule provides that an employee "will not be disqualified'for lack of ability to do such work after a period of thirty (30) calendar days thereon". August having thirty one days, the letter received by,claimant on September 21, exceeded the time limitation provided for in the Agreement.

 The carrier contends that Rule 19(a) does. not provide for written notice, and the verbal notice was, therefore, in compliance with the provision.

 We have consistently held and adhered to the following principles, guidelines and maxims in interpreting provisions of Agreementai

 1. The Board may intaptat an ambiguous provision, but has no right or jurisdiction to change or modify an unambiguous provision;

 2. A contract provision must be interpreted in its entirety rather than piecemeal;

 3. The time limitations of an agreement must be strictly adhered to (9933, 11757, 13942, and numerous others).


Rule 19 (a, b and c) is unambiguous. It deals with the failure of an employee to qualify in a new position to which lie was assigned. Subdivision(a )provides that 70 days, he will not be disqualified for lack of ability. It does not provide that an employee must work thirty days before being disqualifled. It provides that such an employee may not be disqualified after holding the position for thirty days. The carrier may find him unqualified, and in fact, must do so, before the expiration of thirty days. The carrier in the instant case apparently did find the claimant unqualified as early as September 11, when it verbally notified him.

 The question then arises, whether the verbal notice of September
 ll complied with the provisions of Rule 19. Our opinion is that it did
 not. All three subdivisions of the Rule are and must be considered as a
 whole. They provide: (n) for time limitations of disqualification; (b) for.
 written notice of disqualification; and (c) procedure for claim of unfair
 disqualifcations. To assume that subdivision (a) Is separate from sub
 division (b) would give the carrier the right to orally disqualify an employee
 within the thirty days limitation and then give him written notice six months
 or a year later. This, certainly, was not the intent of the parties to the
 agreement. They intended to and did provide for written notice of disquali
 fication within thirty calendar days from the appointment. Idr can not modify
 or c:iai:ge the clear provisions of Rule 1·?.

 :he notice received !:y clai.:,iaut on : tspi:ci.;,or '1 Boas not given iii cor,:pliance with tire provi.siuus u:-' ..ole 14. ,:ot Having received proper notice, claiirant was not o'rIi;;aLed r.o follow the procedure oui.lined in siiiidivision (c).

 YIN0INGS: 0he fhirl idvision of. the Ad_)ontment ':oard, upon the whole record
 ' and all the evidence, finds and !colds:

,'hat the farrier and the 'mployea involved iii r:!:; s dispute arP respectively ·-arr:er and .4i:ployes within t!ie jreaidng o,: rte i;ailway .abor Act, as approved .Tune 21, 14?4;

 ':'hat this iiivision of the .;djiistr:ient --oard has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein, sac










ATTEST:
        Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois this 13th day of July 1973.

 i4'