(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks,
 ( Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employes
 PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
 (Southern Pacific Transportation Company (Western Lines)













                        Docket Number CL-25793


          CLAIM N0. 7. The Southern Pacific Transportation Company violated the current Clerks' Agreement when on September 17, 1982 it failed to call and use Mr. R. L. McKune, Clerk, Klamath Falls, Oregon, for 8 hours overtime work on Position No. 37 and instead shoved Clerk T. 0. Seater from Position No. 15 to Position No. 37.


          CLAIM N0. 8. The Southern Pacific Transportation Company violated the current Clerks' Agreement when on September 18, 1982 and on October 2, 1982 it failed to call and use Mr. R. L. Westman, Clerk, Klamath Falls, Oregon, for 8 hours overtime work on Position No. 109 on each date and instead shoved Clerk C. L. Stevenson from Position No. 32 to Position No. 109 on each date.


The Southern Pacific Transportation Company shall now be required to compensate each of the individuals named in Claims 1 through 8 a days pay (8 hours) at the overtime rate of time and one-half at the rate of the position involved for each date designated in the claim as provided in the November 24, 1982 Arbitration Award of Arbitrator I. M. Lieberman involving BRAC and the Southern Pacific Transportation Company."

 OPINION OF BOARD: This is a contract interpretation dispute initiated by the
 Organization on behalf of eight. Clerks and involving nearly identical issues and facts surrounding Rule 34(f). That rule reads:

        "(f). When a vacancy exists on an assigned work day of an established position or a new position, it will be filled as follows, when the Carrier elects to fill the vacancy:


          1. Senior, qualified, available Guaranteed Extra Board employe on a straight-time basis in accordance with the provisions of this Rule 34.


          2. In the absence of a qualified Guaranteed

          Extra Board employe on a .straight-time basis,

          by the senior, qualified, available assigned

          or Guaranteed Extra Board employe on an

          overtime basis, or where applicable under the

          provisions of Section (c) of this rule. In

          the case of a vacancy on a relief assignment,

          by the incumbent of the position to be

          relieved on that date, then by the senior,

          qualified, available, assigned or Guaranteed

          Extra Board employe. Calling will be from

          the volunteer overtime list, where maintained.

                        Award Number 25937 Page 3

                        Docket Number CL-25793


          3. In the event the vacancy cannot be filled

          under Items 1 and 2, then the Carrier may

          instruct an employe, scheduled to work the

          same hours at the vacant position, to vacate

          his regular assignment and fill the vacancy.

          An employe so removed will be paid the rate

          of his regular assignment, the rate of the

          assignment worked, or his protective rate,

          whichever is higher. However, if it is found

          the Carrier could have filled the vacancy

          under Items 1 or 2 and failed and/or

          neglected to call employes referred to in

          Items 1 and 2, then the Carrier will pay the

          employe removed from his assignment eight

          hours' pay at the straight-time rate of his

          regular assignment, or eight hours straight

          time pay at his protective rate if such rate

          is being paid for service on his regular

          assignment and, in addition, will be allowed

          eight hours straight-time pay at the rate of

          the position worked.


          4. In the event the vacancy cannot be filled

          under Items 1, 2 or 3, the junior employe who

          has been called on an overtime basis may be

          required to fill the vacancy in accordance

          with provisions of Letter of Agreement of

          March 11, 1971."


In each of the cases at bar the following circumstances took place. Carrier found itself with a vacancy to be filled under Rule 34(f). Under the provisions set forth above, Carrier found no qualified Guaranteed Extra Board employes as set forth in Section 1. Each of the Claimants in the instant case was available as per Section 2. Carrier did not call them to fill the vacancy, but went instead to Section 3. Carrier filled the temporary vacancy by moving another employe from their regular assignment to the temporary vacancy as per Section 3 and compensated the shoved employe as per the Agreement Rule 34(f), Section 3.

 The Organization argued that each employe run around in the shove (as per Section 2) was due compensation and as such, filed Claim. The Carrier argued that it had followed the Agreement and as such, there could be no Claim for compensation. Unable to reach agreement, this Board is now asked to resolve the issue.

 The circumstances surrounding this Claim are somewhat unique in that Carrier and Organization have previously set this same impasse before
 Arbitration. In a November 24, 1982 Arbitration Award, Referee Lieberman J .
 ruled for the Organization and against the Carrier. In that Arbitration
 ruling Lieberman reviewed and considered at length the same issues which this
 Board in its Appellate function is now being asked to review. In fact, to
 rule for the Carrier we must find that Arbitration Award palpably erroneous
                            Award Number 25937 Page 4

                            Docket Number CL-25793


    and non-precedential. In that Award, Lieberman quotes a Carrier letter of July 28, 1980, and correctly notes that the "Carrier conceded that it had made an error in this respect" and as such paid for that error as per Agreement. In the case at bar no error or "oversight" is being conceded or claimed by Carrier. In the instant case Carrier maintains a clear right by Agreement to move around Section 2 and shove an employe by Section 3 as long as it pays double pay. The Lieberman Award does not support such an interpretation.


Carrier therefore argues in the instant case that the Lieberman
 Award is palpably erroneous and should not be followed by this Board (see
 Third Division Award 15740). In addition, the Carrier notes the following:
 that it followed the Agreement; that the history of the new contract provision
 documents wording inclusion from Section 6 Notices; that historically there
 had been no prior payments of any kind to either the shove position or the
 person run around; and that specification of payment to the shoved employe
 acknowledges by contract no intent for additional pay to the employe run
 around. In line with this last point are numerous Awards, including Third
 Division Award 4439 which stated that "when a rule specifically lists the
 situations to which applicable it thereby excludes all those not included
 therein" (see also Third Division Awards 21772, 20277, 14531). A more recent
 precedent for its contract interpretation is noted by the Carrier in Third
 Division Award 24527.
 This Board has meticulously evaluated the Lieberman Award, Carrier
 Dissent and Organization Rebuttal as well as the numerous Awards cited by both
 parties. In the mind of this Board the central issue at bar is the inter
 pretation of Rule 34(f) in light of the evidence as presented on the property
 and made a part of this Claim. A written rule consummates a long tedious
 bargaining history and is important only to the degree that the contract lacks
 clear and unambiguous language. This Board, in carrying out its primary
 function under the Railway Labor Act, must begin by evaluating the contract
 J language in its attempt to determine the intent of the parties. This Board
 turns to bargaining history, past practices, issues of parol evidence,
 promissory estoppel and the like only after evaluation of language ambiguity
 and only when the language is so ambiguous that such past negotiations and
 practices help to determine the mutual intent of the parties. If the mutually
 agreed provision includes clear language, then the provision as written
 governs. It is a standard principle of arbitration that anytime a new
 contract is developed it is presumed that when parties reduce to writing clear
 sequential steps or change language, that they intended a change in process or
 meaning. Past history becomes relevant only to the degree that one must
 determine the intent of the parties because the language or sequence is vague
 and the controlling Agreement ambiguous.
 This Board therefore focuses first upon the Agreement sequence and
 language finding it clear and unambiguous. The language of the Agreement
 specifies in Rule 34(f) an order of Sections 1, then 2, then 3, and then 4.
 In Section 3 it states:
                        Award Number 25937 Page 5

                        Docket Number CL-25793


          ...if it is found the Carrier could have filled the vacancy under Items 1 or 2, and failed and/or neglected to call employes referred to in Items 1 and 2, then ....


The language does not state that the Carrier could have filled the vacancy under Items 1 or 2 and chose or elected instead to call other employes, it states "failed and/or neglected." Failed is defined as being "negligent in a duty (or) expectation". Neglected is defined as "to ignore or disregard, to fail to attend to properly" (Webster's New World Dictionary). The language clearly states that the Carrier is expected to attend properly to calling employes under Sections 1 and 2, before it moves to Section 3. As such, an employe bypassed by Carrier failure to follow the written agreement is directly affected and due recourse. If it was Carrier's interpretation that the negotiated rule would be followed in the manner in which Carrier now applies it, such clear and convincing evidence is lacking. There is no language or other evidence (such as Letters or Memoranda) that Section 3 was meant to provide the only remedy, or to shift entitlement in such fashion as to give the Carrier the right, if desired, to avoid the sequence of Sections 1 and 2, going to Section 3. The circumstances and rules are not similar to those cited as precedent in this case by Carrier (Third Division Award 24527). Although specifying pay in one circumstance could well suggest the intent to exclude all other possibilities, this Board cannot conclude in these instant circumstances that the Organization would have bargained a sequence of Section 1, then 3, then 4, then 2 or agreed by contract to directly bypass seniority. On the whole of the evidence, clear language prevails.

 This Board therefore holds with the Lieberman Award. It finds the language of the Agreement clear and unequivocal. It assumes that parties to a contract negotiation of such language are charged with full knowledge of the possible significance of Rule outcomes and as such, must be prepared for those eventualities. Finding such language as "failed and/or neglected", we have no authority to reconstruct or construe the clear and unambiguous language and sequence of Rule 34(f) into some other order or meaning. 'This Board finds that the Organization's case must be sustained, even though it is clear that the results are presently discordant to the Carrier. This Board agrees with the Lieberman Arbitration Award and in effect agrees it has precedential value and should be considered tea judicata.

 As for compensation, the Claimants are entitled to be compensated as they should have been called to perform service as per Rule 34(f) Section 2. Under the circumstances at bar, Claimants DeShazer, Faulk and Wilson are to be compensated at time and one-half whereas all other Claimants at their straighttime rate of pay in ac property.

 FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, after giving the parties
 to this dispute due notice of hearing thereon, and upon the whole
 record and all the evidence, finds holds:

 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;
                        Award Number 25937 Page 6

                        Docket Number CL-25793


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

        That the Agreement was violated.


                        A WAR D


        Claim sustained in accordance with the Opinion.


                            NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                            By Order of Third Division


        J


Attest:~,~
 ' Na . - Executive Secretary

 Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 26th day of February 1986.