(American Train Dispatchers Association
 PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
 (Soo Line Railroad Company

(a) The Soo Line Railroad Company (hereinafter referred to as "the Carrier") violated the Agreement between the parties, Rule 4 (a) and Rule 22 (a) thereof in particular when it refused to compensate Claimant Train Dispatcher C. J. Macki for eight (8) hours at the then applicable pro-rata trick dispatchers' rate on August 9, 1970 account time lost, and eight (8) hours at one and one-half times the basic straight time rate of Night Chief Dispatcher's position for August 11, 1970 which was service on assigned rest day.

 (b) The Carrier shall now compensate the individual Claimant for eight (8) hours pro-rata at trick dispatchers' rate on August 9, 1970, and the amount of the difference between the pro-rata rate and the time and one-half rate for August 11, 1970 to which he is entitled under the terms of the Agreement.

 OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant, an extra train dispatcher working off the train
 dispatchers' extra board in Carrier's Stevens Point, Wis
 consin, office, made bid for a permanent position advertised by bulletin
 dated July 27, 1970, and posted as per terms of the Agreement. Carrier,
 by bulletin issued on August 7, 1970, announced that Claimant was "the senior
 bidder and is assigned to the permanent vacancy..." At that time Claimant
 was working on a continuing vacancy as extra dispatcher on the Night Chief
 Dispatcher position.

 Carrier did not de facto assign Claimant to work on the permanent
 position, which he had bid in, until August 19, 1970.

 It is the Organization's position that Claimant was contractually entitled to work the permanent position immediately following his selection -- August 7, 1970 -- to the permanent position; and, had this been done he would have been compensated as alleged in the claim.

 It is Carrier's position that in the absence of an expressed contractual obligation it is a prerogat a successful bidder will be assigned to perform the duties of the bid in position and become entitled to the emoluments of the position.


The bulletins, referred to above, do not fix a date when a successful bidder will assume the dut
There is no rule in the Agreement -- none was cited -- specifying when a successful bidder will be placed on a position.

 This Board has no jurisdiction to fix by edict a time limitation within which an action must be accomplished by either party; nor, does this Board have any equity powers. Lacking equity jurisdiction, we may not premise a finding solely on our sense of what is "reasonable."

        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

 The claim must be denied because the record does not support a finding that Carrier violated the Agreement.

                      A W A k D


        Claim denied.


                            NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                            By Order of Third Division


ATTEST: 100- ~
 Executive Secretary

        Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 14th day of December 1973.