season were posted on December 1, 1996. The posting closed on December 14 and positions were awarded in late December. Although the Claimant bid on one of the positions, it is undisputed that he was ineligible to do so while on leave of absence per Rule 21F. A Group 5 Machine Operator position that was mistakenly awarded to him was corrected by bulletin dated January 20, 1997, which awarded the position to a junior Machine Operator. On February 26, 1997, the Claimant obtained a medical release to return to full duty efective March 15,1997. Despite the delayed effective date of his release, the Claimant immediately sought to displace the junior Machine Operator. The Carrier refused his attempt. Regional Gang RP-11 actually began its work season approximately one week prior to March 15.

The Organization and the Claimant rely on the provisions of Rule 21F for their claim. It reads as follows:

"F. Bids will not be accepted from an employe while on vacation, sick leave, or other authorized leave for jobs that are bulletined and closed during such absence. Such employe will be permitted to displace a junior employe from an assignment secured by bulletin that was posted and closed during the absence of the senior employe, provided he does so within five (5) calendar days upon reporting back for service."

The Carrier, on the other hand, relies on the Terms and Conditions applicable to regional production gangs that resulted from the findings and recommendations of Presidential Emergency Board 219, which were imposed by Congress in Public Law 10292 on April 17, 1991, as well as the implementation provisions resulting from the compulsory arbitration mechanism provided therein. The Terms and Conditions in question read, in pertinent part, as follows:

"Employees assigned to regional or system-wide production gangs, including recalled furloughed employees and new hires, will not be subject to displacement during the work season by senior employees outside of their own gang, unless the employee seeking to exercise displacement rights would otherwise be forced into a status of collecting supplemental unemployment benefits under the Work Force Stabilization provisions of the Recommendations of PEB 219." (Emphasis added)

It is undisputed that the exception pertaining to collection of supplemental unemployment benefits did not apply to the Claimant.

The record developed by the parties during their handling of the matter on the property presents a fact pattern that is essentially identical to that which confronted the Board in Third Division Award 35963. In denying the claim in that Award, the Board found that the restriction on displacement rights expressed in the Terms and Conditions

02-3-99-3-244