George S. Roukis, Referee


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


                    STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood (GL-9498) that:


    (1) Carrier violated the Clerks' Rules Agreement in Milwaukee, Wisconsin when it failed and/or refused to award Sectional Stockman Position No. 51400 to employe R. J. Boguszewski.


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


      (3) Carrier shall now be required to compensate Employe R. J. Boguszewski an additional eight (8) hours at the pro rata rate of Sectional Stockman Position No. 51400 For April 14, 1980 and continuing for each workday of that position until. the violation is corrected.


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


      OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant, who has a March 25, 1968 seniority date, is the

      regularly assigned occupant of Clerk Position No. 07180

      which is assigned from 7:00 A.M. to 3:30 P.M., Monday through Friday, with

      Saturday and Sunday rest days. On :larch 11, 1980 Carrier issued Bulletin No. 105

      advertising Sectional Stockman Position No. 51400 which was subsequently awarded

      to a junior employe. Claimant submitted a letter to Assistant Agent E. M. Nowicki,

      dated March 28, 1980, requesting an unjust treatment investigation, pursuant to

      Rule 22 (f) because he contended he was the oldest bidder for the position. The

      Assistant Agent declined his request by letter dated April 14, 1980 on the grounds

      that Rule 22(f) may only be invoked when the alleged unjust treatment is for an

      offense, occurrence or circumstance riot covered by a rule in the Clerk's collective

      agreement. Mr. Nowicki stated in part that:


            "I am advised you were not awarded the position to which you refer by reason of specific Rule 7 and 9 of the Clerks RuLas Agreement; then=fore, you are not entitled to a hearing under Rule 22 (f), in that said rule is inapplicable to you and/or your case."


      This response was further appealed in accordance with Agreement procedures and

`. is presently before this Division for dispositive determination.
                      Award Number 24421 Page 2

                      Docket Number CL-24282


In reviewing this case this Board must note that we have exhaustively considered this same issue involving the same parties on several occasions and have consistently found for the aggrieved employe. In fact, Third Division Awards Nos. 23283, 23333 and 23923, which are recent decisions, pointedly addressed this adjudicative issue, and uniformly held that affected employes were entitled to unjust treatment proceedings under Rule 22(f) or prior similar rules, when denied positions because of alleged lack of fitness. Other Third Division Awards which upheld this judicial construction are 8233, 9+15, 9854, 18922, 21615, 22442, 22443, 23050 and 23064. In Award 23064, officially dated June 30, 1982., ire held in pertinent part that:
        "This is not the first time that this issue was presented to this Board. Awards of this Division, involving these same parties, have been issued by resolving many of the questions of when an unjust treatment hearing is required. Clearly, it is now established that such a hearing is appropriate, and an employe is entitled to receive one provided he or she requests it in a timely fashion, when the allegation is that the employe lacked fitness and ability to perform the job."


We find no unique or distinguishable characteristics herein which would reasonably suggest a factually different situation, nor do we find any compelling logic developed through well established case law that would warrant a variant conclusion. Instead we find a consistent, coherent body of precedent decisions which have painstakingly considered this ram= question and the verdict in each case has been for the Claimant. In view of this judicial symmetry, we are constrained by the force of our decisions to observe strictly the principle of Res Judicata and' thus, we must find for Claimant. We will sustain parts 1 and 2 of the claim and direct that Carrier compensate Claimant the difference between what he earned and what he would have earned, if any, when Carrier failed to comply with the Agreement. We find no justification for interest penalty and this portion of the claim is rejected.

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


        That the parties waived oral hearing;


That the Carrier and the Employes 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 24421 Page 3

                        Docket Number CL-24282

                        A W .A R D


        Claim sustained in accordance with the Opinion.


                            NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                            By Order of T:iird Division


Attest: Acting Executive Secretary
 National Railroad Adjustment Board

 By ~..e'~,-rvt~l.c_e_~
 Rosemarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant

 Date at Chicago, Illinois, this 15th day of June 1983.