Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 27873
 THIRD DIVISION Docket No. MW-27267
 89-3-86-3-363
 The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee John C. Fletcher when award was rendered.

 (Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:

 (1) The Carrier violated the Agreement when it failed and refused to bulletin a vacancy as machine operator (Tamper MS-007) on Roadmaster M. Brown's territory which existed for over thirty (30) days (System File B-16024/EMWC 85-7-18B).

 (2) Mr. J. P. Williams shall be allowed compensation for all time worked on the position referred to in Part (1) hereof beginning sixty (60) days retroactive from May 16, 1985 continuing until said position is bulletined and assigned to the
FINDINGS:
The Third Division of the Adjustment Board upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that:

 The carrier or carriers and the employe or employes involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 1934.

 This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.

On May 1, 1985, Carrier placed in service, on Mobile Gang No. 182, Cameron Switch Tamper MS-007. Carrier initially assigned Mr. J. D. Shores, a qualified machine operator assigned to Rail Gang No. 2, as the tamper operator. On May 16, 1985, the of the equipment and the fact that the job had not been bulletined. On June 12, 1985, by Bulletin No. ND-36-85, a permanent position was advertised for an operator of the Tamper. At that time Mr. J. R. Deaton was temporarily assigned. Mr. Deaton was the o assignment, by bulletin, on July 10, 1985.

 The May 16, 1985, Claim contended that Rules 2, 31, 32, 36, 38(a)(6) and 79 were violated when Carrier worked the Tamper over 30 days without bulletining and when it per the equipment.
 Form 1 Award No. 27873
 Page 2 Docket No. MW-27267
 89-3-86-3-363

 Rule 2 deals with establishing seniority. Rule 31 covers promotions to higher classes. Rule 32 restricts promotions to the seniority district and sub-department in which employees have seniority. Rule 33 provides that promotions shall be based on
Rule 36 deals with filing vacancies and new positions. Two paragraphs, (a)(2) and (a)(3), are im




Rule 38 is titled "Assignment of Employees." Paragraph (a)(6) deals with temporary positions. It reads:

Rule 79, the last Rule relied on by the Organization, deals with recalling furloughed employees.

 The first question we must answer is when was Carrier, under the Rules, required to post a bulletin for the new Tamper position? From our reading of the Agreement, we can only conclude that this should have occurred no later than 20 days following the date the position was established or by May 21, 1985. The language of Rule 36(a)(2) seems clear and unambiguous on this point and not susceptible to any other construction. The facts before us demonstrate that the Tamper assignment was "a new regular position" which _will "be bulletined ... within 20 days following the date such position is established."

 It has been suggested that the more flexible time provisions of Rule 36(a)(3) might control, but we think not. The language of Rule 38(a)(3) does not deal with new positions, temporary or regular, as some have suggested. Specifically sit only covers one subject - temporary vacancies on existing positions. Regular vacancies on existing positions being covered in 38(a)(2). And the way Rule 38(a)(3) deals with such temporary vacancies on existing positions is to except them from the time frame within which they must be bulletined. Rule 38(a)(3) provides that a temporary vacancy of an existing position need not be bulletined until it it determined that the vacancy will exist for 30 days or more.
 Form 1 Award No. 27873
 Page 3 Docket No. MW-27267
 89-3-86-3-363

 It is obvious that Rule 36(a)(3) is not applicable to this Claim, because, by its terms, it only covers temporary vacancies on existing positions, a situation
The next question we must consider is was it proper for Carrier to work Shores on the assignment through June 4, 1985? Rule 38(a)(4) provides that:

However, 38(a)(6), (quoted above), creates an exception to unrestricted staffing in the case of here seems to prohibit employes from working such assignments occurring in a class when their seniority entitles them to a regular job in that class. From this it would appear to the Board that while Carrier had license to fill the new Tamper job temporarily it was improper under the Rule to use Shores on the assignment while the job was in an unbulletined status.

 Accordingly, the Board must conclude that the Agreement was violated when Carrier did not bulletin the assignment within 20 days following the date it was established. Also, we conclude that the Agreement was violated when Carrier used Shores to fill the assignment when it was in an unbulletined status.

 On the matter of appropriate reparations, Carrier has argued that the Organization's Claim is excessive and it also questions Claimant's entitlements. The Organization co comes too late, being articulated for the first time in its Submission to this Board. We do note, though, that the original Claim was filed on May 16, 1985, and seeks compensation retroactive 60 days from that date until the assignment was bulletined and assigned. Obviously, compensation cannot be awarded for days earlier than the date Shores first worked the assignment. From the material in this record we c
It is also obvious that when Carrier got around to bulletining the assignment on June 12, 1985, it was no longer unbulletined and thus the restrictions of Rule 38(a)(6 We have no evidence in this record that subsequent to bulletining the assignment was not properly fi
In view of the above the Claim will be sustained, on the basis that the Agreement was violated when Shores was improperly permitted to work the assignment and Carrier failed to timely bulletin the vacancy, for a day's pay at straight time rates for each day the assignment worked between May 1, 1985, and June 12, 1985.
 Form 1 Award No. 27873
 Page 4 Docket No. MW-27267
 89-3-86-3-363




                          By Order of Third Division


                      00,


Attest:
        ancy J. v -Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 4th day of May 1989.