Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employee PARTIES TO DISPUTE: Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad Company

1) Carrier violated and continues to violate the Clerks Rules Agreement at Milwaukee, Wisconsin when it arbitrarily disqualified Employe Virginia Christian on Assistant Cashier Position No. 87050.

 2) Carrier further violated the Agreement when it refused to grant Employe Christian an investigation as per her request in liar with the provisions of Rule 22 (f).

 3) Carrier shall now be required to recognize employe Christian's seniority and promotional rights by assigning her to Position No. 87050 and compensating her for an additional day's pay at the appropriate rate for each workday she is denied her contractual rights to that position commencing June 20, 1979·

 4) Carrier shall further be required to pay interest in the amount of seven and one-half ('Th) percent per annum on all wage loss sustained as set forth under Item (3) above until the violation is corrected.

 OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant, V. Christian, is the regularly assigned occupant
 of Caller Street Muskego Yard in Seniority District No. 4.
 Claimant has a seniority data of October 28, 1952.
District No. 4 advertising vacancy on Assistant Cashier~Pbsitioa 87050 in the
 Caller's office at Milwaukee, Wisconsin. r,

 On June 20, 1979 Bulletin No. 270 was issued to employes is Seniority District No. 4. The Bulletin awarded Position 87050 to W. J. Bostrom, who has a seniority date of December 5, 1953·

 On June 26, 1979, Claimant requested, by letter, an unjust treatment investigation under the provisions of Rule 22 (f) account of not being awarded Position 87050.
                      Docket Number CL-23865


Carrier denied Claimant's request for an unjust treatment investigation. It asserted that "Rule 22f was intended to corer situations which may arise from time to time which are not covered by the rules or agreements". According to Carrier, since Clai'mant's application for Position 87050 was denied pursuant to rule 7 of the Agreement, Rule 22 (f) was sot applicable in this case.

 The Organization argues that Carrier's denial of an unjust treatment investigation violates Rule 3 - Seniority; Rule 7 - Promotional and Rule 22 (f) - Discipline and Grievances. In its view, the entire controversy would have bees eliminated if Carrier would have held the requested investigation. There,, Claimant would have had a full opportunity to establish whether she did or did not possess sufficient fitness and ability to perform the fob.

 The central issue here is whether Carrier was obligated to provide Claimant with an unjust treatment hearing. It is undisputed that Claimant's request for one was instituted in a timely manner.

 This issue has been presented to this Board on numerous prior occasions. Awards of this Division, involving these same parties, have been issued which resolve many of the questions raised in this case. Clearly, it is now established that an unjust treatment hearing is required provided the allegation is that the employs lacked fitness and ability to do the fob and provided further that the employs timely requests such a hearing. See Awards 8233, 9415, 9854, 18922, 23283 sad 23923. Nothing presented here convinces us that the reasoning contained in those awards is palpably erroneous.

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

 Gives these prior awards involving the same parties we will sustain harts (1) sad (2) of the claim. Carrier shall also compensate Claimant the difference,, if any., between what she earned and what she would have earned when.it failed to award her Position No. 87050. The Organization's request for additional remedies is paragraphs (3) and (4) of the statement of claim are not available under the facts of this case.

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

                                            r


        That the parties waived oral hearing;


That the Carrier and the Employee 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.

Award Number 24d+9
 Docket Number c7.-23865

 A W A R D
Claim sustained is accordance with the Opinion.

 Pa Se 3

 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
 By Order of Third Division

 Attest: Acting Executive Secretary
 National Railroad Adjustment Board

        64.4,464",j ~C,0011to'14e::::~

        Rosemarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant


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