~c




                  _ THIRD DIVISION Docket Number SG-23955


                      Irwin M. Lieberman., Referee


      (Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (Southern Pacific Transportation Company (Pacific Lines)


                    STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen on the Southern Pacific Transportation Company (Pacific Lines):


      (a) The Southern Pacific Transportation Company (Pacific Lines) has violated the Agreement effective October 1, 1973, between the Company and the employees of the Signal Department represented by the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen and particularly Rule 53·


      (b) Signal Department Notice No. 22, Rio Grande District, dated August 24, 1979, be reissued and copies furnished to s11 employees as provided by Rule 53." (Carrier file: SIG 16-47)


                    OPTION OF BOARD: This dispute involves Rule 53 of the Schedule Agreement, which provides in pertinent part as follows:


            "RULE 53. Assignments To New Positions or Vacancies


            Assignments to new positions or vacancies shall be made after advertisement notice has been posted for a period of fifteen (15) calendar days on bulletin boards of signal gangg` and copies sent to all employee entitled to consideration in filling the position and to the local chairman, during which time employee may file then application with the official whose name appears on the notice. The appointment shall be made and the name of the successful applicant announced within a period of twenty (20) calendar days from the posting of the notice."


      It appears that on Signal Department Notice No. 22, dated August 24, 1979, a vacancy was advertised for bid on a permanent position of Special Signal Technician with headquarters at E1 Paso. The notice was posted on bulletin boards and mailed to employee assigned to work out on the line, according to Carrier. The Seniority District in question had twenty-two signal employee at nine headquarter points. Subsequently the position was awarded to Mr. R. J. Simpson. The Clams herein was filed on behalf of a senior :xading 3igaal.=aa, Mr. Warren based on his contention that he never received a copy of the bulletin. Later, the other three Signalmen located at Dewing, New Mexico also indicated that they had not received copies of the Bulletin. There was also undisputed evidence that the vacancy had been discussed with all the signalmen at Dewing between August 27 and 30, 1979, prior to the position being awarded to Mr. Simpson, and therefore all the men were aware o° the vracancy.

                      Award number 23941 Page 2 (

                      Docket Number SG-23955


Petitioner argues that even if the Bulletin had been mailed to the signalmen at Deming., it was never received by them and hence the contractual procedure was not complied with by Carrier. It is concluded by the Organization that the only recour all employee who might be interested is the position have as opportunity to bid on it.

 Carrier points out that it complied with the requirements 9f Rule 53 when it mailed copies of the Bulletin to the employee at Deming (among others). Further, it is argued that there are no damages to any individuals alleged in this dispute and is addition the signal crew at Deming was aware of the vacancy is timely fashion. Carrier also asserts that there is no contractual provision for readvertis doing so, is any event.

 The Board notes that letters (including the bulletin) were mailed to the signalmen at Deming in one envelope is care of the Carrier Agent at that location. This could be construed as a failure to mail the bulletins to the individuals entitled to receive them is accordance with the rule. Without holding that the Carrier is at fault in this circumstance, since a good faith effort was obviously attempted by the Carrier (and the employee were aware of the vacancy), it is clear that the issue is currently moot, No useful purpose could possibly be served by reissuing the bulletin almost three years after the fact, and conceivably such action, even if warranted, could create new problems and inequities. For this reason, as well as the good faith involved is the Carrier's efforts, it is concluded that the claim must be dismissed. It must be noted, however, that in the future such bulletins should be mailed to individuals - not is a group to an agent.

        FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:


        That the parties waived oral bearing;


That. the Carrier and the Employes involved is this dispute are respectively Carrier and Employee within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 19341

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

        That the issue is moot.


Claim dismissed.
                        Award Number 23941 Page 3

              - Docket Number SG-23955


                            NATIONAL RAILROAD AWLS21ENT BOARD

                            By Order of Third Division


ATTEST: Acting Executive Secretary
 National Railroad Adjustment Board

 By
 emarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant

 Dated at Chicago, Illinois,, this 14th day of July 1982.