Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 28228
THIRD DIVISION Docket No. CL-27334
89-3-86-3-550
The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Edward L. Suntrup when award was rendered.
(Transportation Communications International Union
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(Missouri Pacific Railroad Company

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


1. Carrier violated the Clerks' Agreement when it refused to allow Clerk V. A. Delay to displace junior employe on position of Star Agent, Auburn, Nebraska, effective July 16, 1984.

2. Carrier's action in the instant case is in violation of Rule 2, Paragraph 2, Rules 4, 7, 13, 14 and 18 of the Agreement between the parties.

3. Carrier shall now be required to place Claimant Delay on the position of Star Agent, Job No. 847, Auburn, Nebraska, compensating him at the rate of said position, $2,673.75 per month."

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 September 3, 1984, the Organization filed a Claim on behalf of the Claimant alleging that the Carrier was in violation of several Rules of the Agreement, in particular Rule 2, Paragraph 2, which reads in pertinent part:


Form 1 Award No. 28228
Page 2 Docket No. CL-27334
89-3-86-3-550



The Organization contends that by denying the Claimant the right to displace a junior employee on the position of Star Agent at Auburn, Nebraska, the Carrier violated Rule 2. Remedy requested is that the Claimant be placed in the position at the applicable r
The Board has held on numerous occasions that agreements between the parties must be viewed as a whole in determining their application to particular situations. Paragra Organization's Claim. But the Board cannot apply this portion of the Agreement while ignoring Rule 2


Rule 2(e), therefore, creates an exception that allows the Carrier to reject bids for such positions when the bidder is not approved by the Operating, Traffic and Accounting Departments. Such happened here. The Claim must, therefore, be denied. Public Law Board No. 3314, Award No. 5, on this property, betwee striking similarities.
Form 1 Award No. 28228
Page 3 Docket No. CL-27334
89-3-86-3-550






                          By Order of Third Division


Attest:
        ancy J. D v -Executive Secretary


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