(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen PARTIES TO DISPUTE.





On behalf of Mr. J. J. Wilkowskip seniority dated April 1., 1947, CTC Signal Maintainers Brsinerd, Minnesota, account violation of the current Signalmen's'Agreement., particularly Rule 22-A., when Mr. C. L. Flagon, Regional Signal Engineers deliberately and erroneously awarded the position of Signal Inspector to a junior employee, Mr. C. J. Rutten~, seniority dated October 14, 1963·" (General Chairman file: TC-79-204. Carrier file: sI-6(e)-3 11/14/79)

 OPINION OF BOARD: The essential facts is this case are undisputed. Claimant
 was on vacation from August 13, 1979 to August 18, 1979
 and returned to work on August 20, lg(9. On this day, he received Employment
 Bulletin No. 56-79-TGP,, dated August 16j, 1979, announcing the Signal Inspector's
 position at Staples, Minnesota and stating that bids would be accepted until
 12:00 midnight on August 29., 1979. Claimant submitted his bid for this position
 by U.S. Mail on August 22~ 1979 but it was not received by the Regional Engineer
 Signals Office until August 27j, 1979. Claimant contends that Carrier violated
 the controlling Agreements particularly Rule 22(A), when it awarded the position
 to a junior employs since he complied with the applicable bid notification pro-
 cedures. '.



Carrier contends that it complied with the Agreement since it was compelled by Article 41(B) thereof to accept only those applications that were received on or before 12:00 midnight on the 8th day following date of bulletiny which was August 24, 1979 for the Signal Inspector's position. This rule reads:
                      Docket Number SG-2349'( s'


        "(B) Applications for positions advertised by bulletin must be received by the officer whose name appears on the bulletin on or before 12:00 midnight on the 8th day following date of bulletin sad assignment made on next regular semi- noath7,y bulletin."


in our review of this case, we concur with Carrier's position. Rule 22(A) which is at issue in this dispute does not provide any basis for concluding that it was violated. It is a seniority rules which does not address., either directly or petition sad we are constrained by our appellate authority from interpolating by judicial constructions language tnat would change this rule. There is no language in this rule which covers the nature of the violation cited in the instant claim and thus we must deny it.

        FINDIIlGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Boards upon the whole record and all the evidennes finds and holds:


        That the parties waived oral hearing;


That the Carrier and the Eaployea involved is this dispute are respectively Carrier acrd Employer within the meaning of the Railway Labor Art, as approved Jun'! 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.


                            NAS'IONAL RAILROAD AL1TfFTMU2 BOARD

                            Hy Order of Third Division


        ATTEST: ecutive secretary


        Dated at Chicago Illinois, this 29th ,day of January 1982.


                                      p,FCEI~E

                                      D


                                      fE 8 7 9

                                          ·o 0


                                    000 Office _ p!1`~' ~,,


                                        VafJG.7·1.