Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 29002
 THIRD DIVISION Docket No. CL-29085
 91-3-89-3-497
 The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Irwin M. Lieberman when award was rendered.
 (Transportation Communications International Union
 PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
 (Grand Trunk Western Railroad Company

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

(1) Carrier violated the Working Agreement, particularly Rules 15(c), 18 and 19(b), among others, when in February 1988, it failed and refused to assign Seniority District No. 9 clerical employees W. E. Minor, W. Matthews and P. T. Rossiter to positions in Seniority District No. 11 in accordance with their seniority.

 (2) Carrier further violated the Working Agreement, particularly Rule 33 (Time Limits), when the District Manager, with whom initial claims were timely filed, failed to deny or give reason for disallowing such claims.

 (3) Carrier shall now be required to compensate W. E. Minor eight (8) hours pay at the Bill S Audit Clerk No. 119 rate ($110.80/day) commencing February 8, 1988; W. Matthews eight (8) hours pay at the Senior Forwarded Checker No. 280 rate ($110.80/day) commencing February 15, 1988; and P. T. Rossiter eight (8) hours pay at the Car Tracing Clerk rate ($2,404.18/month) commencing February 29, 1988, and compensate them for each subsequent date until such time as they are assigned the positions in question and awarded a proper seniority date in Seniority District No. 11."

 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.

First it is noted that the Claim with respect to Claimant Rossiter has been withdrawn and will not be considered in conjunction with this determination.
 Form 1 Award No. 29002
 Page 2 Docket No. CL-29085
 91-3-89-3-497

 Both parties raised procedural arguments (time limits) with respect to this dispute. The Organization alleges that Carrier did not respond to the original claims within the contractually required period and Carrier maintains that the Claims were not presented to the appropriate Carrier official previously designated as the surrounding this dispute primarily because two of the Claimants were furloughed and the vacancies oc one they had been assigned to prior to their furloughs. It does not appear that there was any intent to abuse the process of claim handling by either party nor was there any serious impact on either employee or Carrier rights by the alleged improprieties. For those reasons it is believed 'that the best interests of the parties will be served by dealing with this dispute on its merits and dismissing the offsetting procedural arguments.

 The two remaining Claimants herein were furloughed from District 9; the vacancies involved herein were in District 11. By ieccer dated January 12, 1988 furloughed employees in District 9 were notified of anticipated clerical vacancies in District 11, in the headquarters building (in close proximity to District 9). That notice stated that the jobs would be filled in order of the receipt of the replies. The record indicates that two positions were filled by furloughed clerks from District 9 with less seniority than Claimants Matthews and Minor based on the dates of their replies to the January 12th letter.







                    FILING APPLICATIONS


          Employees filing applications for positions bulletined on other districts will, if they possess sufficient fitness and ability, be iven reference on a seniority basis over non-employees and or employees not covered by this agreement." (Emphasis added)

Form 1 Award No. 29002
 Page 3 Docket No. CL-29085
 91-3-89-3-497

 The Organization argues that Carrier is not entitled to "select" as it wills, based on receipt of applications to fill vacancies in "other" seniority districts. The Organization relies on the language of Rule 15(c) supra and notes that Carrier properly applies the language of that Rule to short term vacancies, while choosing to ignore it with regard to longer term vacancies, as herein. The Organization also relies on Third Division Award 22869 which deals with an identical problem.

 Carrier maintains that there is no system-wide seniority on this Carrier and it acted properly in the assignments in question. Carrier relies on Third Division Award 15045 and insists that the Rules involved in fact dealt only with the preference of employees over non-employees' or other employees not covered by th all the vacancies in District 11 with employees from Districts 7 and 9. Furthermore Carrier notes th days respectively in filing applications for the vacancies in question (while the successful employees filed promptly). Further, Carrier states that neither of the two Claimants suffered any losses as a result of the assignments.

 The Carrier's reliance on Award 15045 in this instance is not persuasive. The treatment of Claim 15(c). It would be incorrect to ignore the seniority language contained in that Rule, if Carrier's position was sustained. The Board believes that the reasoning expressed in Award 22869 is controlling and should be followed. The seniority provisions of Rule 15(c) must be given some meaningful weight; to ignore that language would be tantamount to modifying the Agreement.

 The record does not indicate any monetary losses for Claimants due to Carrier's actions in this matter. Thus, the remedy will only relate to the filling of similar vacancies in the future. Further, due to the timing of Claimants' filing, no seniority adjustment is appropriate.

                      A W A R D


      Claim sustained in accordance with the Findings.


                          NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                          By Order of Third Division


Attest:
      Nancy J. r - Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 24th day of September 1991.