(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen
 PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
 (Southern Pacific Transportation Company
 ( (Pacific Lines)

 STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood
 of Railroad Signalmen on the Southern Pacific
 Transportation Company:

 (a) the Southern rracific Transportation Company (Pacific Lines) has violated and/or misapplied the Agreement between the Company and its Employes in the Signal Department, represented by the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen, dat 1, 1973, particularly (Appendix tB') paragraph 2 and 5, of the NA=orardum of Agreement dated September 20, 1971 and Rule 53 of the Schedule Current Agreement.

 (b) Mr. J. B. Wisor be awarded the position of Lead Signalman (Temp) Gang No. 25, Headquarters, Klamath Falls, Oregon, as advertised in Signal Department Bulletin No. 165, dated February 11, 1976, which Mr. Wisor properly submitted his Bid on, and was the only Bidder. It is further reouested that the assignment date be established effective February 27, 1976, the date of Signal Department Bulletin No. 166 and that any and all differential in pay rate accrued due to this assignment be made payable to ?r. J. B. Wisor according to the proper application of the hour rate of pay to actual time worked." Carrier file: SIG 148-25f
OPINION OF BOAR: We must first reject the position of Carrier that
 the subject claim is moot because Claimant was
 promoted on April 21, 1976 to the position which the instant claim
 alleges he was improperly denied. It is clear, from the record, that
 the alleged injury sought to be rectified by the claim is one which is
 identified as a denial of promotion to Claimant as of February 27, 1976.
 Accordingly, there survives a claim for repair of differences in
 earnings lost to Claimant for the period of February 27, 1976 to
 April 21, 1976 because of actions taken in alleged violation cf tae
 Schedule Agreement between the parties.
                  Docket Number SG-22098


        As to the merits of the claim, we find that Rule 50 (a) cited

by Carrier (in atach ability and merit take precedence over seniority
 for promotion, and evaluation of the capability factors is reserved for
 management) must yield to the promotion provisions for Assistant
 Signal men and Assistant Signal Maintainers. The latter deals in a
 particularized way with a clearly identified class of employes and, in
 keeping with the widely held rule of contract construction that the
 particular takes precedence over the general, this clause takes
 preeminence for the subject matter of the instant clause over the more
 general declaration of Rule 50 (a).

 It is undenied that Claimant, an Assistant Signalman was the only applicant for the Lead Signalman's vacancy bulletined on February 11, 1976. It is also wndenied that Claimant had earlier filled a terporary signalman's position on this Gang. There is no dispute concerning the fact that both Signalman and Lead Signalman positions are Class 3 positions, even though job responsibilities are not identical. Nor does Carrier refute Organization's representation that Carrier has, in the past, promoted Assistant Signalmen in training to Class 3 positions.

 Carrier's objection to prcmotion of Claimant to this vacancy is based principally on the fact that Claimant had only recently campleted the third training period of his training program. This consists of four periods of 130 eight-hour days of service. Because of this, Carrier ecnsidered him neither eligible or qualified for the promotion in question.

 As a matter of contract rights and obligations, Carrier points out that Appendix "B" states in its Section 2 that "assistants shall be required to serve" the four periods of 130 eight-hour days. Organization calls attention to the fact that this clause concludes with the qualifier - "except as hereinafter provided in the agreement" and Section 5 of the same Appendix permits the elevation of Assistants who are still in training to Class 3 when "there is a need for more employees" in Class 3 than are available among those who have graduated. Carrier points out that the same Section goes on to say that, in such cases, the choice shall be among those "who have passed the greatest number of examinations" and calls attention to the fact that no evidence has been presented that Claimant had passed the greatest number of examinations, bearing in mind that he had only completed three of the four training periods.

 We find that, in conformity with Section 5 of Appendix "B", a need did exist for more employer than were granduated, for the advertised promotion; this is demonstrated by the fact that the only applicant to apply for a job declared by Carrier as needing to be filled, was Claimant, a non-graduate.
                  Award Number 22168 ?age 3

                  Docket Number SG-22098


We further find that a proper reading of the qualification in Section 5 that the choice shall be among those who have passed the greatest number of examinations, is that such comparisons are to be made among bidders. Inasmuch as Claimant was the only bidder, no such comparisons were possible.

 In addition, we are pers-,jaded from tae record that to have appointed Claimant to the vacancy would not have brought about a harsh or absurd result. The record indicates that such promotions have been within past practice and that Claimant had demonstrated probable ability to perform the work in question, subject to the protection provided management in Section 5, of a 60-day trial period.

 Inasmuch as the remediable aspects c_' the claim were ended by Claimant's promotion on April 2:., 1976, o,.=- Award kill sustain the claim for make-up pay only to ','.--at date.

        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 Emnloyes involved in --his di=_u-z;e are respectively Carrier and R~ployes within the meaning o: the -Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934;

 That this Division of the Adjustment Board :-as jurisdiction over the dis_oute involved herein; and

        That the Agreement was violated.


                    A W A R D


Claim martially sustained in that there shall be -aid to Claimant the difference between his earnings and the ray ="or head Sig^.a2-an (Class 3) for the period between Febrrary 27, !976 and April 21, 1976.

                          NATIONAL RAILROAD r'JUSTIIENT BOARD

                          By Order of Third Division


        ATTEST: M-cecutive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, I1Linois, this -11st day of Ju,lly 19"8.