(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen
 PARTIES TD'DISPUTE:
 (Central of Georgia Railroad Company

On behalf of all Central of Georgia signal employees because Carrier abolished the Traveling Signal Maintainer position at Columbus, Ga.., and rebulletined the job as a Signal Maintainer to evade the application of the rules of the A rate, (General Chairman file: OG-25. Carrier file: SG-366)"

 OPINION OF BOARD: The Carrier abolished one position, asmely, traveling
 signal maintainer, and rebulletined the job as a
 signal maintainer.

 The Organisation filed a grievance vith the Carrier maintaining that the position vas substantially the same and that it vas merely a change in the title. It vas the same kind of work, and the position covered almost the same territory as the abolished position. The Organisation cited Rule 64, citing
The claimant further pointed out that the change in designation because of the way the compensation is made vould own that the new position would be paid less than the previous designated position.

 The Carrier failed to respond to the grievance vithin the time limit set out in the Agreement and, therefore, upon prompting by the Organization, the Carrier rebul December 22, 1978, it assigned one of the bidders to the ,fob but in the same bulletin, it abolished the job effective midnight January 7, 1979 and established as a substitute the ,fob of signal maintainer, in effect, doing once again vhat it had done before and vhich vac the cause of the grievance.


One question raised by the Organisation is that the Carrier did not comply with the specific request in the grievance which was as follors:

            _ "To correct this grievance, the carrier be required to rebulletin the position as a traveling signal maintainer to all signal employees on Central of Georgia Railroad and that the assignment be the same as it was on July 1, 1978. Also, that anyy employee affected by the rebullatin of this position be returned to their former position."


The issue of compliance then is whether by the rebnlletining of the position of traveling signal maintainer as the Carrier had done previously rather than using the description as of July 1, 19T8, is substantial compliance with the request by the Organisation. We feel that in light of the further language used by the Organisation in its grievance letter, wisely:

            "The new position established as signal maintainer on Bulletin 8120 is almost the same territory as the position of traveling signal saintainer that was abolished on the same bulletin."


This is substantial compliance with the request of the grieving party.

 The fundamental question being raised by this claim is whether the Carrier in a circumstance such as this can comply with the request of the grievant and Immediately thereafter perform the same act or whether because of the decision which was made on a procedural matter can, in effect, bar any further consideration of the issue.

 After e~i"ing the record, we have concluded that the'Oarrier satisfied the request of the grieving party when it rebulletined the job of traveling signal maintainer and appointed a person to fill this position. Any subsequent actions on the part of the Carrier with respect to this position is subject to whatever remedies are available to the Organization in its agreement with the Carrier.

 We note that the subsequent activity of the Carrier in once again terminating the position of traveling signal maintainer and replacing it with a signal maintai
                  Award Number 23277 Page 3

                  Docket Number SG-23283


not before us at this time. The issues raised in the proceedings, both substantive and procedural, will be resolved in that case.

 FI1mINGS: The~Third Division of the Adjustment Board, after giving the
 parties to this dispute due notice of hearing thereon, and
 upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:
That the Carrier and the Employee involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and Roployes 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 denied.


                            NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMEN BOARD

                            By Order of Third Division


ATTEST: aara2m

      Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 30th day of April 1981.