(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 CIAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood (GL-9492) that:


1. Carrier violated the Clerks' Rules Agreement at Nahant, Iowa when it failed and/or refused to award Clerk Position R-12 to Employe F. A. Maas.

 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 F. A. Maas an additional eight (8) hours at the pro rata rate of Clerk Position R-12 for April 16, 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 fifteen (15) percent on all monies due as stated in Item (3) above, payable on each anniversary date of this claim.

 OPINION 'OF BOARD: The pivotal issue herein has been frequently decided by
 this Board. In the predecessor cases involving the same
 Organization and the same Carrier, we had consistently ruled that an employe is
 entitled to an unjust treatment investigation, pursuant to Rule 22(f), when
 said employe has been denied a position because of alleged lack of fitness and
 ability. There is nothing in the instant dispute which would warrant a variant
 interpretation. Claimant filed a grievance when Carrier refused to accord him
 an unjust treatment hearing. He argues that he was the most senior employe and
 should have been awarded the Relief Clerk position R-12 at Nahant, Iowa. The
 position was_awarded to a junior employe.

 Carrier contends that Rule 22(f) is inapplicable since it may only be invoked when the asserted unjust treatment is for an offense, occurrence or circumstance not covered by a rule in the Clerk's Agreement. It avers that Rule 7 covers Claimant's situation and thus his request for an unjust treatment investigation is without Agreement support.

 In our review of these arguments, we do not agree with Carrier's position. As we pointedly stated in prior precedent awards, such a hearing is required when an employe timely requests it. In Third Division Award No. 23253, involving the same parties, we held in part that:

        "Numerous awards of this Division, involving the same parties, have been issued, holding that employees were entitled to

                      Award Number 2441 Page 2

                      Docket Number CL-21+269


        unjust treatment hearings under Rule 22(f), or prior similar rules when denied positions because of alleged lack of fitness and ability. -See Awards 8233, 9415, 9854 and 18922. Also, a number of awards involving the same parties, have been issued indicating that unjust treatment hearings were granted in similar cases before the disputes were appealed to this Division. Sea Awards 21615, 22442, 22443, 23050 and 23064."


We reiterated this unambiguous interpretation in subsequent awards involving the same parties. See Third Division Awards Nos. 23023 and 24049. Surely, at this juncture, we would expect that this adjudicative issue has been permanently resolved. It ill serves the arbitral process when one of the parties continually seeks to reverse consistently held judicial determinations. The Principle of Res Judicata must apply. We will sustain parts 1, 2 and 3 of the claim, except that with respect to part 3, Carrier is directed to compensate Claimant the difference between what he earned and what he would have earned, if any, when it failed to award him the contested position. Part 4 of the claim is denied.

        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.


r- .7
 A W A R D -

 r°~

 7 -' c.

                                            \?~ C;f;ce-

                                                o

                                                      ~/

        Claim sustained in accordance with the Opinion. '. --- :


                            NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                            By Order of Third Division


Attest: Acting Executive Secretary
 National Railroad Adjustment Board

 By .
        Rosemarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant


                                                            Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 14th day of July 1983. l