(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (Chicago and North Western Transportation Company

 STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood of Rail
 road Signalmen on the Chicago and North Western Railway
 Company that:
(a) On or about July 6, 1971, the Carrier violated, and continues to violate the provisions of the Memorandum Agreement applicable to District Signal Foreman effective July 1, 1956, when it failed to bulletin and/or appoint a District Signal Foreman from the Signalmen's class after Mr. J. Chalapty retired as District Signal Foreman.

 (b) The Carrier now be required to reimburse Mr. J. Schuhrke the difference between his rate of pay and that of the District Signal Foreman's from July 1, 1971, and continuing until Carrier complies with the Agreement.


(a) On or about November 20, 1970, the Carrier violated, and continues to violate, the provisions of District Signal Foreman effective July 1, 1956, when it failed to appoint a District Signal Foreman from the Signalmen's class after it was bulletined to the District Signal Foreman and no bids were received.

 (b) The Carrier now be required to reimburse Mr. T. Olliges the difference between his rate of pay and the District Signal Foreman's rate of pay, starting 60 days prior to the date of this claim and continuing until Carrier complies with the Memorandum Agreement.

OPINION OF BOARD: In November, 1970, the District Signal Foreman at Mayfair
 retired. The Carrier bulletined the position but when no
 bids were received, it did not appoint an employee to the position.

 Upon the retirement of a District Signal Foreman in July, 1971, the Carrier neither bulletined, nor filled(by appointment) the position.

 . Both claims are submitted here under the Organization's contention that Section 9 of its Memorandum Agreement requires that all new or vacant positions of District Signal Foremen of thirty (30) days or more duration, grill be bulletined for a period of ten (10) days and if no applications are received from qualified foremen in the district, the position will be filled


by appointment of the best qualified individual in the signalmen's class in the district. The Organization contends that the wording of the memorandum is mandatory and that
The Claimant asserts that Carrier violated Article V, Section 1(a) of the Agreement by the mariner in which initial denials of the claims were conducted. The quoted section of the Agreement requires a denial to contain written reasons for such disallowance. The denials of the claims stated, "I can see no rule to base this claim on and therefore, your claim is denied."

 We have reviewed the authorities cited by the parties concerning the sufficiency of answers to claims. We note that the quoted denials were in response to claims which were themselves not specific and merely alleged a violation of the Memorandum Agreement when the Carrier failed to appoint employees to the foreman's classification.

 Upon the facts of this record, we are unable to conclude :.hat the Carrier violated the mandates of the Agreement as alleged by Claimant.,

 The Carrier asserts that Claim No. 2 is barred because a claim was not submitted within the mandatory sixty-day period of the failure to appoint to the foreman's position. The Organization concedes that more than si::ty days elapsed, but urges that its claim is of a "continuing nature." We believe that the claims are d unnecessary to consider the dispute concerning the nature of the claims.

 The Carrier defends its action on the ground that it abolished both positions. Concerning Claim No. 2, the Carrier. states that it abolished the position when no one submitted a bid. Concerning Claim No. 1, Carrier asserts that it abolished the position upon the retirearr~ of the former incumbent. A bulletin was issued on November 5, 1971, confirming that the positions had been abolished.

 We believe that it is firmly established that in the absence of an Agreement restriction, a Carrier may abolish a position. See, for example, Special Board of Adjustment :To. 371, Award No. 13 and Third Division Award No. 14738 concerning these same parties. Moreover, an the property, the Organization conceded that fact when it stated;













There is a suggestion that the delay in issuing a bulletin regarding the abolishment of positions (r the positions were not abolished at the times stated by Carrier.

 While there is dispute as to whether Rule 36 of the Agreement is applicable to Foremen, nonetheless, the type of notification mentioned there does not apply here. Other than that reference, we have searched the pertinent documents in vain to formal or informal bulletin or notification, orally or in writing, concerning abolishment of positions. Thus, we conclude that a belated notification is not, in and of itself, an admission. If there were a sharp factual dispute under which Claimant asserted that the position continued to exist during the time in question or that some individual performed duties of the allegedly abolished position, then, a belated bulletin might be of,some evidenciary value in determining such a fact dispute. But no such arguments or contentions are advanced here.
 The record fails to show that Carrier did anything other than abolish the positions; which cans their right. We will deny the claim.



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