Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employee PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (Elgin, Joliet and Eastern Railway Company

1. Carrier violated the effective Clerks' Agreement when it failed to post an advertising bulletin for Position G8-Vac. #12 at its Whiting, Indiana office until after the period for bidding had elapsed, thereby denying Clerk Helene M. Krause the opportunity to bid this position;

 2. Carrier shall now compensate Ms. Krause for (1) the difference in the rate of pay between her assignment (GT-357) and Position GT-Vac. #12 for each work day for her work week which is also a work day of Position GT-Vac. #12; (2) eight hours' pay at the time and one-half rate of GT-357 for each day Claimant is scheduled to work which is a rest day on GT-Vac: #12; (3) eight hours' pay at the pro rata rate of GT-Vac. #12 for each work day of that position which is a rest day of GT-357; commencing on June 19., 1978 and continuing for each and every day thereafter that Claimant is denied GT-Vac. #12.
OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant, H. M. Krause, has a seniorit date of September 1,
 1966 in District No. 4. District No. ~ comprises, among other locations, Carrier's facilities in Whiting, Indiana and South Chicago, Illinois.

 On June 13, 1978, Claimant was a clerk assigned to Position ,(^r-357, Chief Rate Clerk, with a daily rate of $60.1221. Claimant was working at Carrier's facility at Whiting, Indiana.

 On June 13, 1978, Carrier issued Bulletin No. 251 advertising Position No. GT-Vac. #12. This was a temporary vacancy at South Chicago, Illinois, having a daily rate of pay of $65.7416. The position was advertised for the period of June 19 to August 20, 1978.

 On June 19, 1978, Carrier awarded the position to the senior applicant, 0. A. Jackson. Jackson is junior to Claimant. It is undisputed that Claimant did not apply for the position prior to June 18, 1978.

 The Organization claims that Carrier violated Rule 9 of the Agreement regarding the bulletining of new positions and vacancies. Specifically, the Employes assert that Bulletin No. 251 was not posted in Whiting, Indiana, until June 19, 1978, the day after the bidding period closed.
                    Docket Number CL-23193


The Organization contends that Carrier's action deprived Claimant of a position which she desired and possessed the necessary qualifications, including seniority, to obtain. It asks that Carrier be directed to compensate Claimant for:

 1. The difference in the rate of pay between her assignment (GT-357) and Position GT-Vac. #12 for each work day of her work week which is also a work day of Position GT-Vac. #12;

 2. Eight hours' pay at the time and one-half rate of GT-357 for each day Claimant is scheduled to work which is a rest day on GT-Vac. #12;

 3. Eight hours' pay at the pro rata rate of GT-Vac. #12 for each work day of that position which is a rest day of GT-357; commencing on June 19, 1978 and continuing for each and every day thereafter that Claimant is denied GT-Vac. #12.

        Rule 9 states, in relevant part,


        "(a) All new positions, permanent vacancies and temporary vacancies of twenty-five (25) or more calendar days known duration shall be promptly bulletined in agreed upon places accessible to all employes affected for a period of five (5) calendar da s in the seniority district where they occur, bulletin to show location, title and description of position, rate of pay, assigned hours of service, assigned meal period, assigned rest days and, if temporary, the probable or expected duration."


Thus, since the position in question fell under the terms of Rule 9(a), Carrier was requires to post the position for a period of five (5) days prior to awarding the position. This is the clear purpose of Rule 9(a).

 Eased on the evidence in the record, this Board is of the opinion that the bulletin in question was not posted at Whiting, Indiana until June 19, 1978. We are convinced that Carrier's failure to post the position was not purposeful. Instead, we are persuaded that it was due to a mere oversight.

 In any event, the Agreement was violated. Clearly, Claimant is entitled to be compensated for the loss of opportunity to obtain a position she was entitled to receive.

 However, we believe that the Organization's list of suggested remedies is inappropriate. Instead, we will pay Claimant the difference in earnings between what she would have earned had she bid and been awarded Position GT-Vac. #12 and what she actually earned while occupying Position GT-357. All other requests for payment are specifically rejected.
                  Award Number 23436 Page 3

                  Docket Number CL-23193


        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 violated.


                    A W A R D


        Claim sustained to the extent indicated in the opinion.


                        NATIONAL RAIIROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                        By Order of Third Division


        Attest: Executive Secretary


        Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 3rd day of November 1981.