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

STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood (GL-

1. The Carrier violated, and continues to violate, the rules of the Clerks' Agreement when it denied Ernest R. Hein the position of Revisor No. 218 in the Freight Claim Department, Chicago, Illinois.

 2. The Carrier shall now be required to place Mr. Hein on position of Revisor No. 218 and reimbu per day, commencing July 2, 1973, and continuing until placed on position of Revisor No. 218.

 OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant was employed by Carrier on August 3, 1936.
 Thereafter, he received a number of promotions; the last of which being to Interline Rechecker on August 11, 1970.

 On May 21, 1973, Claimant was advised that his position would be abolished effective June 29, 1973, and that he was free to exercise his seniority. On May 29, 1973, Claimant advised Carrier that he desired to exercise his seniority rights to position as "Revisor $218." On the next day, he was notified that: "Under provisions of Rule 7 your application for displacement is rejected." On the same date, Claimant requested a hearing under Rule 58 (unjust treatment) - which was conducted on July 23, 1973. On August 10, 1973, after review of the transcript of investigation, Carrier advised Claimant that he d this claim.

 From our review of the entire record, we conclude that the same basic contentions set forth herein were presented to us in Award No. 20878, and that the same considerations which prompted our Award in that dispute control the outcome of this case. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in our Award No. 20878, we will deny this 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






                        By Order of Third Division


ATTEST: ~. _
 Executive Secretary

 Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 26th day of November 1975.
              LABOR MEMBER'S DISSENT TO

              AWARD 20878 (Locket CLr-20874)

              AWARD 20879 (Docket CL-20875 )

              AWARD 20880 (Docket CLr-20877)

              AWARD 20881 (Docket CLr20878)

              REFEREE SICKLES


In reviewing what is set out in Award 20878 together with the other awards dealing with the same subject matter, that is, Awards 20879, 20880, and 20881, one is at a loss as to how the majority of the Board can conclude, based on all the facts and circumstances which were presented, that carrier's action was such whereby it could not be set aside and the claims should not be sustained.

 While one must recogztze, that if all four claimants were permitted to displace experienced revisors at the same time, it could have led to some rather disouieting results, it is nevertheless evident that based on all the facts and circumstances which permitted the claimants to exercise the rights to which they were entitled under the agreement, together with the fact that all the claimants had numerable years of service and demonstrated their ability to properly perform in their prior assigmients, based on the provisions of the agreement governing carrier's action was biased, arbitrary, capricious, and grossly abusive., This is especially due to the fact that the positions in question were not "exempted" as the carrier officials desired they be treated and it is evident that in this particular instance all the claimants did not have the potential to be able to perform the duties of the positions within a reasonable time and by no stretch of the imagination was carrier's action such that it coul
Award 20878, along with 20879, 20880, and 20881 are palpably in error and all require dissent.

                              AertaldUTopjO~

                              Labor Member


12-23-75