(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks, ( Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (Central Vermont Railway, Inc.

1. The Carrier violated the Telegraphers' Agreement when it failed to allow Mr. W. C. Whitaker the Mobile Agent position at Windsor, Vermont.

 2. Mr. Whitaker shall now be allowed eight (8) hours pay at rate of $5.7880 per hour for September 30, 1974 and each subsequent day until violation is corrected.
OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant held the position of Mobile-Agent with Carrier
 being headquartered at White River Junction, Vermont,
 working from 1400 to 2200 hours, with Saturday and Sunday rest days, and an
 hourly rate of pay of $5.7879. The duties of the Mobile Agent position con
 sisted of agency work between Randolph, Vermont and Windsor, Vermont, 14
 miles apart.

 Under date of August 13, 1974, Carrier issued a Bulletin to employes concerned that the position of Mobile Agent, headquartered at White River Junction, would be abolished after tour of duty Friday, August 30, 1974. Subsequently, under date of establishing a Mobile Agent position with headquarters at Windsor, Vermont. This position at Windsor entailed working from 1800 to 0300 hours (including one hour meal period), with rest days of Saturday and Sunday, and an hourly rate of pay of $5.7880. The duties of this position were to cover the territory between Windsor, Vermont and
Under date of August 28, 1974, Claimant filed a request with the Chief Dispatcher's Office requesting the position under the provisions of Rule 13(c) and 14(e) of the Working Agreement.

 However, under date of August 30, 1974, Carrier assigned a one W.A. Dubois to the Mobile Agent position at Windsor. Mr. Dubois had been a telegrapher at Windsor, whose Mobile Agent position was established.

 Claimant thereupon grieved the denial of his bid for the Mobile Agent position at Windsor, and the grievance was processed through the appropriate channels without properly before this Board.


The pertinent rules of the Working Agreement applicable to the instant case are as follows:


















Now, it must be remembered that on questions of contract interprets tion the power of this Board is limited to an interpretation and application of the contract. This Board has no power to add to or subtract from or modify any of the terms of the agreement between the parties.


Underlying the need for contract interpretation is the fact that language cannot always be tailored to fit precisely the variant meanings which parties to an agreement may have in their minds. Language is frequently used which is general in nature and flexible enough to include those meanings which future experience necessitates being filled in. A word is not a crystal, transparent and unchanged; it is the skin of a living thought and may vary greatly in color and content according to the circumstances and the time in which it is used.

 Turning then to the instant case, there is a disagreement between the parties pertaining to the interpretation of the words "new" and "position", which are used in 13(c) and 14(e) of the Agreement. Moreover, there is a further difference of opini
Now, this Board moat give words their ordinary and popularly accepted meaning in the absence of anything indicating that they were used in a different sense or that the p contrary, the usual and ordinary definition of terqs as defined by a reliable dictionary should govern.

 The American Heritage Dictionary of the ~~gliah I anBU$Ae (1969 Edition) defines "new" not only se being "of recent origin", liut more impo as being "different and distinct from what was before." "New" fihus is a broad general term having reference to both time ,i condition.

 The same dictionary defines "position" as meaning "a post (position) of employment; job." "Job" is defined as "a position in which one is employed.'

 ' Roberts' Dictionary of Industrial Relations (1966 Edition) similarly defines "position" as "job".

 Therefore, in light of the above, the Board must conclude that the position of Mobile Agent at Windsor was not a "new position" when compared to the Mobile Agent position at White River Junction. The job duties are the same, the hourly rate of pay is the as-e, and the days off are the same. The only differences are the location (14 miles apart), and the hours of work. Such differences, however, do not make a "new position".

 This interpretation is also supported by Rule 6 of the Agreement.' Rule 6 gives no indication that when the starting time of a position is changed that a "new position" is created.

 In addition, Article II, Section A of the provisions adopted by An. bitration Board No. 298 in 1968 talks about designating a headquarters point for each regular position and specifies that no designated headquarters point may be changed more frequently than once each 60 days. There is no indication, expressed or implied, that a change of headquarters point provides for the establishment of a new position.
                  Award Number 21270 Page 4

                  Docket Number CL-21333


Furthermore, Second Division Award 6038 goes to the issue of whether a movement of headquarters brings on the creation of "new" jobs. The Board in that case stated:

        The facts disclose that Carrier's antiquated depot in Downtown Ft. Wayne, Indiana was condemned and a new Division Office Building was opened on the outskirts of Ft. Wayne, Indiana. The Organization maintains that because of the movement of the Headquarters, the involved p been rebulletined for the reason that the change of address brought on a creation of new jobs. This contention is not well taken. The move from one building to another was within the same seniority District and that Board has held'that an employ'e can be required to perform service within this Seniority District as needed. Award 3144 (Wh (Ferguson), Award 3337 (Bailer), and Award 3458 (Murphy).


    . , Also, this Board can find no rule prohibiting the change

        of address of a Headquarters within a Seniority District and

        requiring the'abolition of all personnel working out of all

        Headquarters when the address is changed within the Seniority

        District. The record discloses that the movement of Head

        quarters involved only a very short distance. There being no

        contractual agreement prohibiting the movement of Headquarters

        within a Seniority District and no contractual requirement of

        rebulletining of jobs for personnel working out of the old

        Headquarters, none will be implied.


Finally, the Board finds that Rule 14(e) specifically prohibits the discontinuing of established positions, and the creation of new ones under the same or different titles, covering relatively the same class of work, which will have the effect of evading the application of these rules (i.e., including Rule 13(c)).

 Although Carrier has maiAtained that the word "rules" in 14(e) refers only to'the other sections of Rule 14, the Board finds otherwise. Rule 14 is one rule, and the plural (i.e., rules) is used in 14(e), which means that this paragraph applies to the other rules as well, namely, in the instant case, to Rule 13. The plural "rules" is the language used by the parties themselves in 14(e), and the Board holds that the contracting parties must be presumed to have known what they were doing when they chose the language which they did to express their bargained intent.

 For all of the foregoing reasons, therefore, Part 1 of the Claim is sustained, and Part 2 is modified so that Claimant only receives the difference between the rate of pay for the Mobile Agent's position and his rate of pay for the third trick Telegrapher-Clerk position at White River Junction. Claimant can recover no more than the loss he has suffered and of which he may rightfully complain. He is not entitled to be enriched.
                Award Number 21270 Page 5

                Docket Number CL-21333


        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

        That the Agreement was violated.


                      A W A R D


        Claim sustained to the extent and in the manner set forth in Opinion


                        NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                        By Order of Third Division


ATTEST:
        Eav &'4fgt-'-0

        xecutive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 15th day of October 1976.
                                          Serial No. 290


              NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD


                    THIRD DIVISION


              INTERPRE-TRTION N0. 1 to AWARD 21270


                    DOCKET N0 . CL-21333


NAME OF ORGANIZATION: Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks,
 Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employes

 NAME OF CARRIER: Central Vermont Railway, Inc.

 Upon application of the Carrier involved in the above Award that this Division interpret the same in the light of the dispute between the parties as to the meaning and application, as provided for in Section 3, First (m) of the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934, the following interpretation is made:

 Carrier requests an interpretation on when its liability should be ended in connection with Part (2) of the claim, as modified by this Board as follows:

        "Claimant only receives the difference between the rate of pay for the Mobile Agent position and his rate of pay for the third trick Telegrapher-Clerk position at White River Jct. Claimant can recover no more than the loss he has suffered and of which he may rightfully complain. He is not entitled to be enriched."


This Board has no authority to alter, change or modify the extent of an Award under the cloak of an interpretation thereto Rather, the Board is limited to interpreting an Award in light of the circumstances that existed when the Award was rendered.

 Clearly, the first paragraph of page 2 of the Carrier's request for interpretation again reargues the merits of the case, which we cannot consider.

 Part (2) of the claim as modified by the Board is valid under the award made from the date of the violation to the date the violation is corrected. A factual controversy regarding the specific date Carrier's liability ends is not in the record before us, and, consequently, this Board does not have the authority to make this determination. Such determination must be made by the
                      _2_


Referee James C. McBrearty, who sat with the Division, as a neutral member, when Award No. 21270 was adopted, also participated with the Division in making this interpretation.

                        NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD &XCAW By Order of Third Division


ATTEST:
        Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 19th day of May 1977.