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

1. The Carrier violated, and continues to violate, the rules of the Clerks' Agreement when it denied Doris M. Sherman the Class "A" Accountant position, Customer Ac Minnesota.

 2. The Carrier shall now be required to place Doris M. Sherman on the Class "A" Accountant position and reimburse her for any loss of wages as a result of being denied the Class "A" Accountant positie._

 OPINION OF HOARD: Claimant commenced employment with the Northern Pacific
 Railway Company in the General Office Building. Data
 Production Department, St. Paul, Minnesota, on August 12, 1959.

 Claimant established a seniority date of August 12, 1959, in accordance with the Working Rules Agreement between the Northern Pacific Railway Company and the Brotherhood of Railway Clerks.

 Prior to the merger of the component lines comprising the Burlington Northern there were sixteen Northern Pacific Office Building. Each of these classified departments maintained a seniority list of employes in each of these respective departments.

 Claimant continued on this separate seniority roster, covering the classified department in which she was employed, until March 3, 1970. On that date the merger of the component lines comprising the Burlington Northern occurred. The former Northern Pacific was one of the component lines which make up the Burlington Northern.

 On March 3, 1970, Claimant, along with all employes in the various classified departments of the Northern Pacific Railway and the Great Northern Railway had their names dovetailed in seniority order on a consolidated roster in accordance with the provisions of the Burlington Northern Clerks' Merger Agreement, with an effective date of March 3, 1970. This consolidated roster is identified as St. Paul General Office District Roster No. 4,


as shown in Article II, Section 1(1) (iv) of the above referred to Merger Agreement and Rule 4 of the Clerks' Working Rules Agreement with an effective date of March 3, 1970.
Immediately preceding the initiation of this claim, Claimant occupied a clerical position in the BNAFI (Burlington Northern Air Freight) section. When Claimant's position in that section was abolished, she attempted to exercise seniority rights by displacing a junior enploye on a Class "A" Accountant position, Customer Accounting Center, St. Paul General Office Building.

 Claimant's written request for the Class "A" Accountant position was rejected by Carrier because Claimant failed to successfully pass a written examination, achieving a score of only 63 points out of 100 points.

 On February 28, 1974, Claimant wrote to Carrier requesting a hearing under the provisions of Clerks' Agreement, Rule 58, entitled, "Grievances". .A hearing was held on March 6 and March 11, 1974. As a result of the hearing, Carrier issued a decision on March 25,. 1974, sus taining the original decision to reject Claimant's request for a Class "A" Accountant position.

 In urging that the claim be sustained, Claimant has cited Rules 7, 56, 57 and 58 of the Clerks' Agreement. These rules are reproduced in their entirety in a previous case between these two parties, namely, Award No. 21329,. and, therefore, will not again be reproduced here.

 The primary issue in this case is the question of whether Carrier violated the Clerks' Agreement when it denied Claimant the position of Class "A" Accountant, Customer Accounting Center, General Office Building, St. Paul, Minnesota.

 Prerequisite to any examination of the primary issue of the case at bar, a determination must be made as to whether or not Claimant failed to properly follow the line of appeal procedures in the progression of this claim.

 From our review of the entire record, we must conclude that the same basic contentions set forth herein were presented to us in Award
 No. 21329, and that the same considerations which prompted our Award in that dispute control the outcome of this case. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth at length in our Award No. 21329, we will deny the instant claim.



                    Docket Number CL-21204


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 Hoard has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and

        That the Agreement was not violated.


                      A W A R D


        Claim denied.


                          NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT HOARD

                          By Order of Third Division


ATTEST:
        Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 16th day of December 1976.