(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers., Express and Station Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE:



1) Carrier violated the Clerks' Rules Agreement at Minneapolis, Minnesota rhea it failed and/or refused to award Chief Clerk Position No. 55010 to Employe W. no Heymeo

 2) Carrier further violated the Clerks' Rules Agreement when it denied him the right o! investigation is line with the provisions of Rule 22(f).

 3) Carrier shall now be required to compensate Employe w. R. Heybe an additional eight (8) hours at the pro rata rate o! Chief Clerk Position 55010 for arch 26, 1979 and coati..~ for each workday o! that position until the violation is corrected.

 4) Carrier shall further be required to pay interest is the amount of seven and one-half (7J) percent on all movies due as stated in Item (3) above, payable on each anniversary date of this claim.

 OF33ION OF HOARD: Claimant, w. R. Heyne, is the regularly assigned occupant o!
 the Belie! Assistant Wire Chief Position No. 72200 at
 Minneapolis, Minnesota. He hoe seniority date is Seniority District No- 5
 o! March 22, 1951.

 On March 14, 1979, Bulletin No. 52 was issued to the employee Seniority District Ho. 5 advertising Chief Clerk Position No. 55010 Material Department at St. Paul, Minnesota*

 On March 23s 1979, Bulletin No. 55 was issued to the employee in Seniority District No. 5. The Bulletin awarded Position 5507.0 to L. M. Neely. Neeley has a seniority date of January 11, 1961.

 On March 26, 1979 Claimant requested an unjust treatment investigation under the provisions of Rube 22 (P) account of not being awarded Position 55010. This request was made &gain on April 1, 1979.

 Carrier denied Claimant's request for an unjust treatment investigation. It asserted that an unjust treatment hearing may be invoked only for as 'offense occurrence or circumstance not covered by a rule in the Clerks' Agreement." It took the position that since Claimant's application for Position 55010 was denied pursuant Rule 7 of the Agreement, that Rule 22 (f) was not applicable in Claimeat's case.
                    Docket Number CL-238&


The organization argues that Carrier's action violated Rule 3P Seniority; Rule 7.- Promotion; and Rule 22 (f), Discipline sad Grievances. The Organization takes the position that the entire controversy could have been eliminated if (terrier would have provided the requested investigation. There Claimant would have had the opportunity to establish whether he did or did not possess sufficient fitness and ability to perform the ,fob.

 The crux of this matter is whether Carrier wan obligated to provide Claimant with as unjust treatment hearing. It is undisputed that Claimant's request was instituted is a timely manner.

 This is not the first time that this issue has been presented to this Board, Awards of this Division, involving these same parties, have been issued by resolving many of the questions of when as unjust treatment hearing is required. Clearly, it is now established that such a hearing is appropriate, and as employs is entitled to receive one provided he or she requests it in a timely fashions rhea the allegation is that the employs lacked fitness and. ability to perform the MoD. See Awards 8233s 9415, 985~., 189?2 and 23283. In facts Referee Paul C. Carter set forth, in great detail, why Carrier's arguments in support of its position that a hearing is not required are without merit. Nothing prese 23283 is incorrect.

 Stated simply, we are pursuaded that this issue has been resolved once and for all.

 Given these print awards involving the same parties we x111 sustain parts (1) and (2) of the claim. With regard to part (3) of the Claim,, Carrier shell also compensate the Claimant the difference between what he earned. and what he would have earned if any when it failed to award him Position No. 55010. Part (4) of the Claim is denied.

        FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Boards upon the whole retard sad all the evidence, finds and holds:


        That the parties waived oral hearing;


That the Carrier and the Employes involved is this dispute are respectively Carrier and Finployes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act., as approved June 21., 1934;

 That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction aver the dispute involved herein; and

        That the Agreement was violated.

                    Award number 23923 Pace 3

                    Docket Humber CL-23864

                    A W A R D


        Claim sustained in accordance with the Opinion.


                        AATIOftAt RA>?.RQAD ADJIEW.NT HOARD

                        By Order of Third Division


ATTEST: Acting Executive Secretary
 National Railroad Adjustment Board

By :~2

          ie Breach - strative Assistant


Dated at Chicago., 13.linoias this 30th day of June 1982.