( Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood

1. Carrier violated Rules 4 and 7 of the Clerks' Agreement, wnen it failed and refused to assign Mrs. Rose Marie Habermehl to position No. 241, Assistant to Sup
2. Carrier shall now be required to compensate Mrs. Rose Marie Habermehl for the difference in rate of pay, $0.83 per day, beginning Monday, April 23, 1973, and co through Friday, until violation is corrected. Claim is also to include any subsequent general wage increase.

 OPINION OF BOARD: The issue is the same as handled by this Board in
we will deny the claim. Again, the parties should address themselves to
 the findings of Emergency Board 186 regarding Retraining.



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






                        By Order of Third Division


        ATTEST: ~.~ Executive 'Secreta~


        Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 31st day of July 1975.

                DISSENT OF LABOR IIVZ~IN 94ARDS 20787 and 20788 (Dockets CL-20729


              and CL-20768 - Referee Quinn)


It is inconceivable that the majority herein would revert to language of an Emergency Board established under Section 10 of the Railway Labor Act, as amended, to deny a claim of an employe(s) submitted to the Adjustment Board under Section 3 of the Railway Labor Act, as amended.

 The clairrant(s) herein did set forth a full statement of the facts and all supporting data bearing upon the dispute(s). Such facts apparently have been comuletely ignored by the majority; since in lieu of rendering a decision based thereon, a portion of an Emergency Board report is quoted in defense of the denial awards. It is to be noted that the E^:ergency Beare report is a recommendation which concerns a particular dispute and that dispute only--a dispute which was never ^entioned or raised during the handling by the parties; which to this d-to has not resulted in an Agreer^ent; and which, moreover, deals 'with job stabilisation and retrair.in~; and has no bearing on the disputes) here. Further, it is evident that the rights of the claimants) under an A~reernent which h Rules 4 and 7, ·:.4iich entitle the ermloye(s) to promotion and 30 days in which to qualify), have been denied.

 These Awards are in palpable error, and the majority rave evaded the responsibility of this Board to apply the clear provisions of the Agreement. In view thereof, I dissent.

                          `\ Gerald ~Toppen

                          Labor Member


August 28, 1975