PARTIES TO DISPUTE:




System Docket EL-12, Atlantic Region - Hoboken Division Case Canal 1861 -- claim of R. L. Devine because Carrier awarded the position of Signal Construction Foreman to a junior employee on Bulletin No. 127 dated April 4, 1978."

OPINION OF BOARD: The Carrier advertised a Foreman position and the Claimant
applied for the job. However, a junior employe was given
the assignment.

The pertinent portion of the Agreement provides that promotions shall be based on ability and seniority and ability being sufficient, seniority shall govern.

We are inclined to agree with the Organization that the Carrier, on the property, raised a number of items in defense of its actions but it did not attempt to demonstrate that the Claimant could not do the work involved. Thus there is no showing that the Claimant lacked the necessary ability and under those circumstances we will find a violation of the Agreement. We will award the Claimant the seniority accrual which he would have amassed had he been selected in lieu of the junior employe and he will be placed ahead of that individual on the pertinent seniority roster.





That the Carrier and the Employes involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and Employee 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


Award Number 24092
Docket Number SG-23461

A W A R D

Claim sustained. in accordance with the Opinion.

Page 2

NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division

Attest: Acting Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board



Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 5th day of January 1983.

~CEIVED

ch~.

<_, 09o Offices


                NATIOIML RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD


                      THIRD DIVISION


              INTERPRETATION NO. Z TO AWARD NO. ?409?


                    DOCXBT NO. SG-23461


NAME OF ORGANIZATION: Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen

NAME OF CARRIER: Consolidated Rail Corporation

Upon application of the representative of the employs involved fn the above Award that this Division interpret the same to the light of the dispute between the parties as to its meaning and application, as provided for in Section 3, First (m) of the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934, the following interpretation is made:

The requested Interpretation seeks to obtain a monetary remedy. However, the Fhrployeels claim did not seek such relief and, of course, the claim could not thereafter be enlarged to include such requested relief. Thus, it was not the intent of the award to require compensation.

Referee Joseph A. Sickles, who sat with the Division as a neutral member, when Award No. 24092 ces adopted, also participated with the Division in making this interpretation.

                              NATIONAL RAILROAD ALUU52WENT BOARD

                              By Order of Third Division


ATTEST: Z

        Nancy J. ve -Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 4th day of November, 1983