(Irene O'Neil PARTIES TO DISPUTE DISP=: (Chicago., Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad Company



OPINION OF BOARD: The Claimant was displaced from her regularly assigned
position, Assistant Console Operator, No. 23170, by a
senior employe on November 17, 1977. The daily rate of pay for Position
No. 23170 was $68.5240. On the sec day the Claimant exercised seniority
to Position 03150, Tracing & Reconsigning Clerk. the daily rate of pay
for Position 03150 was $57.1848.

The instant claim arose when, after reporting to her new position on November 21, 1977, the Claimant was told that she was not entitled to a protected rate of pay and that she would receive the rate of $57.1848 not her previous rate oaf $68.5240. The Claimant contended that she was told by supervision on Novel 17, 1977 that she could bump onto any position, provided she had sufficient seniority, without a reduction in
The claim aunt be denied. The ERAC Protective Agreement, Article V, Sections 1(a) and 1(g) provide that, if an employe is unable, in the normal exercise of seniority rights, to obtain a position producing campensation,eqaal to or exceeding the compensation of the.regularly assi.gnad position, thou sqch employs h entitled to receive the difference between the rate of the farmer position and the rate of the position to which the employe displaced. Here, however, the Claimant could have displaced onto Position 23120, Console Operator, which carried a rate of pay of $70.8064, $2.2824 more per day than her former position. While it is unfortunate that the Claimant say have not understood her displacement rights, it has no


astray regarding her obligations to exercise seniority to the higher rated position. Claimant alone was responsible to preserve her protected rate., and the Agreement is clear and unambiguous in its description of this responsibility.

        FnfDINGS: 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 Employee involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and. Rmployes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as approved Jane 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 denied.


                          NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMT BOARD

                          By Order of Third Division


ATTEST: 4a.Al

      Ems7cutive Secretary


Dated at Chicago., Illinois,, this 16th day of march 1981.