Parties to said dispute were given due notice of hearing thereon.

There is no monetary claim involved in this case. The dispute had its origin in a letter dated December 12, 1999, from the Organization in which a request was made on behalf of the Claimant to have his Signal Maintainer position at Hastings, Nebraska, re-advertised ". . . because of the unit count increase that has been imposed on his existing territory." The request was based on the provisions of Rule 32, which reads as follows:

"RULE 32 - SIGNAL MAINTAINERS HEADQUARTERS

Signal maintainer headquarters will be at a tool house or shop area which will be provided with suitable lockers and other facilities required to properly perform his duties and will be kept in good and sanitary condition. Reasonable washing and toilet facilities will be provided on request and when considered necessary.

When a change is made in the location of a signal maintainer's headquarters or when a signal maintainer's territorial limits are materially increased, or when the starting time is changed more than two (2) hours or when one or both of the rest days are changed, the position will be re-advertised as a new position when so requested by the incumbent through the local chairman. Such request must be in writing and made within twenty (20) calendar days from date of change.

The incumbent of the position to be re-advertised will remain on the position until assignment is made, and he will then make his displacement in accordance with Rule 58."

The unambiguous language of Rule 32, especially the second paragraph thereof which is of primary concern in this case, clearly outlines the specific changes which trigger an application of this Rule. The Rule clearly mandates that the request to re-advertise the position must be made ". . . within twenty (20) calendar days from date of change."

The record of this case contains no date on which the alleged change was made. The Carrier argued without contradiction that the upgrading of the Signal System which impacted the "unit count" on the territory had been in progress over a five-year period. Clearly, this request to re-advertise the position was untimely.

The record further shows that the term "unit count" is not found in the language of Rule 32. It is uncontested that there was no change made in the position's headquarters location; in the territorial limits of the position; in the starting time of the position; or in the rest days of the position. In short, nothing happened to this position which would cause it to be re-advertised even if a timely request had been presented on behalf of the Claimant.

There is no merit to this grievance and it is denied.

AWARD