(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (Consolidated Rail Corporation



(1) The Carrier violated the Agreement when it awarded the trackman's position on the AFE Gang headquartered at Greenville, Ohio as advertised by Advertisement No. 35 dated April 11, 1983 to junior employe N. L. Reed instead of Mr. G. R. Broughman (System Docket CR-225).

(2) Because of the aforesaid violation, Mr. G. R. Broughman shall be compensated



OPINION OF BOARD: Certain facts are not disputed. The Carrier advertised a
vacancy for a Trackman position at Greenville, Ohio in Ad
vertisement /I35 of the Columbus Division. According to the bulletin and the
rules bids had to be submitted by 5:00 p.m. on April 18, 1985. Rule 3 Section
3 is controlling and reads:











          (d) Awards will be made and bulletin announcing the name of the successful applicant will be posted within seven (7) days after the close of the advertisement.


          This Rule shall not be construed so as to require the placing of employees on their awarded positions when properly qualified employees are not available fill their places, but physical transfers must be made within ten (10) days.


          (e) An advertisement may be canceled within seven (7) days from the date advertisement is posted.


          (f) An employee who desires to withdraw his bid or application for an advertised position or vac request, in writing, with the official whose name appears on the advertisement within seven (7) days from the date the advertisement is posted."


The Claimant submitted a bid for the position via U. S. Mail. The envelope was postmarked April 15, 1985. However, it was date stamped as received in the Division eng the position to a junior employee.

The Carrier's argument is that the postmark is irrelevant and that it was the Claimant's responsibility to assure delivery. Along these lines the wording on the bid form seems to contemplate personal delivery.

In times past, when seniority district and operating divisions were small the Carrier's position may have been reasonable. However, as a furloughed employee residing 10 mail. In fact, the ultimate awardee also submitted his bid by mail on April 15. On the other hand, and as a general matter, the Carrier can't be expected to nullify awards once made just because a bid filed before the deadline is received after the deadline. It isn't reasonable under such circumstances to put 'Humpty Dumpty' back together again.

However, it is reasonable under these unique circumstances to expect the Carrier to have treated as valid a bid clearly submitted before the deadline but received after the time the bid is received.

This is a reasonable application of the Rules given the workings of the modern railroad and the wonders of the U. S. Post Office. It is reasonable since it balances app administrative practicalities of making one award. Of course, this makes it incumbent on the employee to get his bid in as soon as possible so that the bid is not only postmarked before the due date but received prior to the actual awarding of the job. If the employee cuts it "too close" he does so at his own peril.
                    Award Number 26601 Page 3

                    Docket Number MW-26208


This raises a critical factual question and that is--what point in time the award notice was actually issued. The Organization in its submission claimed the job was awarded on April 20, 1983, notably after the receipt of the Claimant's bid. However, this assertion cannot be confirmed in any of the correspondence on-the-property before the appeal to the Board. Accordingly, it would be improper to sustain the Claim on a factual assertion which had no foundation in the record properly before the Board.

        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 not violated.


                        A W A R D


        Claim denied.


                              NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                              By Order of Third Division


Attest:
      Nancy J er - Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 27th day of October 1987.