1. Carrier acted in a harsh and capricious manner when it removed Clerk Janice L. Gover from her position as Pricing Analyst.

2. As a consequence, Carrier shall now restore all rights and make Clerk Gover, and any other Clerks affected, whole for any loss they may have suffered due to Carrier's action.,.

The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that:

The carrier or carriers and the employee or employees involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employee 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.

Parties to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing thereon.

On May 22, 1992 Claimant was awarded the position of Pricing Analyst at Jacksonville, Florida. Inasmuch as the Claimant had to move from the Baltimore, Maryland, area the employee did not assume the duties of the assignment until August 10, 1992.

On February 22, 1993 a letter was sent to the Claima= by a Carrier Officer criticizing the work of the claimant and advising there would be a review of the Claimant's work over the -SLt 30 days. After a conference on March 31, 1993 between the Cla_=.ant, the Carrier's Manager Contract Administration, and the Organization's Discrict Chairman, the Manager Cc===act Administration disqualified the Claimant from the Pricing ===lyst position. On April 1, 1993 the Carrier abolished the positio=.

On April 27, 1993 the Claimant wrote the Manager Cc__ract Administration the following letter:

"Your attention is called to Rule 4o of the Seaboar= Railroad Company's agreement dated January 1, 1975.

This is to advise that it is my decision to

c r e against you in connection with your

disqualification of me on my position 096-R-135 Prici=

Analyst, effective with the close of business March 31,

1993."

"RULE 40 -- UNJUST TREATMENT

"An employee who considers himself unjustly treat=_d, otherwise than covered by Rules 37, 38 and 39, shall ha,.--= the same right of investigation, representation ar_ appeal as provided in those rules, if written requ==_ which sets forth the employee's complaint is made to `-_ immediate superior within thirty (3o) days of the caL== for complaint."

The Carrier never answered the Claimant's letter, nor -d is conduct a Hearing.

The Carrier argues that the Claimant did not request a-: ==just Treatment Hearing, but instead stated that charges were to he filed against the Manager Contract Administration. While the Cla-'=ant's request for a Hearing was inartfully written, the letter's -=ant, as evidenced by its citation of Rule 40, is obvious and m_=_= the requirement of Rule 40. The Carrier violated the Agreement w-_-_=_n it failed to give the Claimant the Hearing.

The remedy sought by the Organization is to make the Cla=imant and any other Clerks affected whole. There is no evid°_nc_ any employee suffered a loss of earnings. ^:erefore, the Boar"- will order the removal of the disqualification from the Claiman:'_ file as the sole remedy i.^. this case.

AWARD