(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and ( Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, ( Express and Station Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific ( Railroad Company

1) Carrier violated the Clerks' Rules Agreement on July 6, 1976 at Green Bay, Wis., when it failed and/or refused to bulletin Position No. 37080, Clerk.

 2) Carrier further violated the Clerks' Rules Agreement on July 6, 1976, when it arbitrarily required employe R. B. Schneider to suspend work on Position No. 37080 and assume the duties of Yard Clerk Position No. 37000.

 3) Carrier shall now be required to compensate employe R. B. Schneider an additional eight (8) hours at the pro rata rate of Position No. 37080 account failure to bulletin Position 37080 (per Item (1) above) for the following dates:


4) Carrier shall further be required to compensate employe R. B. Schneider an additional eight (8) hours at the pro rata rate of Position 37080 account arbitrarily requiring her to suspend work on Position 37080 (per Item 2) for the following dates:




OPINION OF BOARD; The relevant facts in the instant case are that
 the Claimant was the occupant of Position No.
 37080, clerk, prior to April 26, 1976. On April 27, 1976, the
 Claimant was displaced by a senior employe. On that same date,
 April 27, 1976, the employe who had displaced Claimant requested and
 was granted a vacation vacancy commencing on that date by the Carrier.
 Claimant was then, requested by the Carrier, pursuant to Rule 12(d)
 to assume the duties.associated with Position No. 37080. Claimant
 worked Position No. 37080 between the dates of April 27th and July 5,
 1976. On July 6, 1976, Claimant was directed by the Carrier to
 assume the duties of the position of Yard Clerk, No. 37000.

 The Organization contends that as a result of the Carrier's removing Claimant from Position No. 37080 and requiring Claimant to perform the duties of Position No. 37000, the Carrier violated Rules 9, 12 and all related Rules of the Agreement. The Organization also disputes the Carrier's argument that the Claimant agreed to work Position No. 37000 since individuals cannot reach understandings or make agreements which are contrary to the terms of the collective bargaining agreement. And, the Organization discounts the Carrier's argumzat that the Claimant received higher compensation by working Position No. 37000 as opposed to Position No. 37080. The Organization argues that the compensation argument raised by the Carrier does not absolve it from violations of the collective bargaining agreement; and further, the Organization contends, that certain other emoluments of employment changed for the employe when she was required to work Position No. 37000 as opposed to Position No. 37080.

 Although the Carrier has spent considerable effort in arguing the compensation defense, the threshold issue, which the Carrier also raises, is whether on July 6, 1976 Position No. 37080, from which the Claimant was removed, was properly blanked/abolished.

        The evidence below supports the Carrier's position that:


            (1) It was not required under any of the terms or conditions in the collective bargaining agreement to bulletin Position No. 37080 subsequent to July 6, 1976;


            (2) That Position No. 37080 was abolished on or about July 6, 1976;

                    Award Number 22582 Page 3

                    Docket Number CL-22556


        (3)After July 6, 1976, Position No, 37080 was not

            a regular position and Claimant had no rights

            to such non-existant position; and


        (4)Subsequent to July 6th and through August 13, 1976,

            there is no evidence of record that other employes

            were utilized on Position No. 37080, regularly or

            on an overtime basis.


        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 not violated.


                    A W A R D


        Claim is denied.


                        NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                        By Order of Third Division


ATTEST: 49, /4/1
        Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 30th day of October 1979.