Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 29028
 THIRD DIVISION Docket No. SG-28691
 91-3-89-3-107
 The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee George S. Roukis when award was rendered.

 (Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen
 PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
 (Consolidated Rail Corporation

Protest of Bulletin No. 01-04-88, dated January 8, 1988, account of Carrier violated the current Signalmen's Agreement, as amended, particularly Rules 2-A-1 and 2-A-1 (b), when it failed to properly bulletin positions in accordance with APPENDIX 'I'." Carrier file 7421.

 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.

By Bulletin No. 01-04-88 dated January 8, 1988, Carrier solicited applicants to train as Electronic Specialist on Seniority District No. 10, Toledo Division. The Bulletin noted that four positions were advertised for bid in accordance with the Agreement and requested that applications be submitted by 12:00 Noon on W contain information regarding rate of pay, tour of duty or rest days, but noted at the bottom "Per Appendix 'F' to Train New Employees."

 By letter dated January 11, 1988, the Organization filed a claim wherein it charged that Carrier violated Rules 2-A-1 (a) and 2-A-16 of the Controlling Agreement, specifically in that Carrier failed to post the position s) advertisement on also charged that Carrier failed to include information relating to assigned territory and rest days. These charges were consistently stressed during the on-situ, appeals and were the gravamen of the Organization's grievance. Rules 2-A-1(a) and 2-A-1(b) are referenced as follows:
 Form 1 Award No. 29028
 Page 2 Docket No. SG-28691
 91-3-89-3-107





In response, Carrier contended that its actions comported with the requirements of Appendix F of the BRS Schedule Agreement, specifically, the requirements relating to trainee selection, schooling and assignment of schedules. It referenced Paragraphs B and C of Appendix F as supportive authority and noted that a similar bulletin was posed in July, 1983 without protest from the Organization. It also pointed out the trainee positions were not new working positions or vacancies as set forth in Rule 2-A-1(a) and noted that the positions were.advertised and awarded in accordance with Rule 2-A-1 following the training and qualification of the successful applicants under Appendix F.

 In considering this case, and particularly the parties past posting practices as evidenced by Organization Exhibit No. 3, May 30, 1984, position posting and Carrier's July 13, 1983, posting notice and further considering the language of the provisions cited, the Board concurs with the Organization's position that Carrie Rules 2-A-1(a) and 2-A-1(b), when the four Electronic Specialist positions were posted. The language in Rule 2-A-1(b) requires that position advertisements contain information closing date and references in parenthesis "See Appendix I". In other words, the application of Appendix I extends from Rules 2-A-1(a) and 2-A-1(b) and accordingly, must be applied consistent with these provisions. The May 30, 1984, posting which was a later posting from the July 13, 1983, posting was consistent with these requirements. On the other hand, since the positions at issue were readvertised in accordance with Rule 2-A-1 at the end of the training period, the questio Form 1 Award No. 29028
 Page 3 Docket No. SG-28691
 91-3-89-3-107






Attest:
      Nancy J er - Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 28th day of October 1991.