Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 28829
 THIRD DIVISION Docket No. CL-28731
 91-3-89-3-112
 The Third-Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee George S. Roukis when award was rendered.
 (Transportation Communications International Union
 PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
 (Green Bay and Western Railroad Company

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

1. Carrier violated the Agreement Rules, particularly the Memorandum of Agreement dated November 22, 1977, Agreement I#1, which constitutes the employe's protective agreement, when on November 17, 1986, the Carrier advised Claimant Ms. Jean Patenaude that she was no longer entitled to her displacement allowance and discon
2. Carrier shall now be required to restore Ms. Jean Patenaude's protected rate of $2,337.73 per month, beginning with the date of November 17, 1986, the date that such displacement allowance was denied Jean Patenaude.

 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.

The basic facts in this case are set forth as follows: Claimant was occupying the position of Station Cashier at the rate of $2,218.53 per month at the time Carrier discontinued her displacement allowance of $119.20 per month, effective November 17, 1986. The reason for this action was that Claimant failed to submit an Traffic Department when said position was posted for bid on October 24, 1986. It was the Organization's position that since the Chief Rate Clerk's position was a Rule 1(b) position exempt from the rules governing promotion, assignment, and displacement Cla Form 1 Award No. 28829
 Page 2 Docket No. CL-28731
 91-3-89-3-112

 was not available to her in the normal exercise of her seniority rights. The Organization also maintains that since Carrier had full discretion in assigning the Chief Rate Clerk a senior employee. It points out that Section 1(a) of Article V of Agreement No. 1 (Protective Agreement) clearly details the requirements for displacement bids, specially the language requiring that an employee who is receiving a displacement allowance must attempt to obtain through the normal exercise of seniority rights, a position producing compensation equal to or exceeding the compensation of the regularly assigned position held by the employee at the time of the initial impacted force reduction. On this point and by extension, it argues that the Chief Rate Clerk's position was not a position that was available to Claimant through the exercise of her seniority and cites Docket No. 40 of the Section 13 Committee under the Washington Jobs Protection Agreement as precedent autho 605 was also cited as supporting.

 In rebuttal, Carrier contends that Claimant was ._quired to submit an application for the Chief Rate 'Clerk's position, since under the terms of the Agreement No. 1, she was mandated to protect her compensat -y rate under Article V Section 1(a). It also asserts that she was obli .ted to bid on said' position as precondition for remaining in a displacement a owance status.
procedure contained in their Protective Agreement and to .mit this claim to
 this Board. In considering this case, the Board concurs - :h Carrier's pos
 ition. The adjudicated issue in Docket No. 40 was not the ime as herein and
 dealt with the computation of the displacement allowance. _n Award No. 478 of
 Special Board of Adjustment No. 605, the Board in that die its made reference
 to Award No. 256, which held that it was not the intent o: 3 similar provision
 to require an employee to engage in a fruitless attempt t. Sid on an exempt
 position. In Award No. 478, the Board held that since the applicable Job
 Stabilization Agreement did not contain language precluding the employee from
 bidding on jobs that were exempt from the promotion, assignment, and displace
 ment rules of the Working Agreement, the employee was required to bid on the
 partially exempt position, when said employee had a "practical probability of
 being selected to fill the position."

 In the case at bar, and consistent with the aforesaid decisional holding and based upon the fact Chief Rate Clerk's position (Position No. 18) was junior in seniority to Claimant there was a reason considered. There are no compelling indications that her bid would have been fruitless.


Form 1 Award No. 28829
 Page 3 Docket No. CL-28731
 91-3-89-3-112
 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
 By Order of Third Division

 Attest:

Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 25th day of June 1991.