P_UMES TO '1111: DISPUI'L::





                  and

    Chicago and Illinois P.tidland Railway Company oo `


STATE,,E~,NT OF CLAIM:

    Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:


        1. Carrier violated the Agreement between the parties, in particular Supplement \o. 1, dated January 15, 1953, when it failed to fill the position of Chief Clerk and Cashier, Powerton, Tllinois, while wider bulletin, with senior furloughed Clerk J. A. Rescho.


        2. Carrier shall now be required to compensate Clerk J. A. Rescho eight (8) hours pay at straight time rate, $59.3715 per (Lay, each day, February 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10, 1973, account being denied the right to work the position aforeiaentioned.


OPINION OF BOARD:
 At issue herein is the Organization's allegation that Carrier violated the express terns of a Letter of Understanding which was carried fon:ard as Supplement No. 1 of the current Agreement. Carrier maintains that Suppelement No. 1 does not govern the case and alternatively that Rules 10, 19- and 20 supercede and control the application of Supplement :Io. 1. Proper disposition of the case requires the reading together and reconciliation of these Agreement provisions.
 By Bulletin of December 2, 1977- the position of Chief Clerk and Cashier, Po:certon Station, eras abolished effective Ikeember 9, 1977. Mr. G. L. Nhrris, the regularly assigned incwnbent of that Ibsi,tion, exercised his -displacement

                        1

                                            ~Icva i~ - 2-o y

                                            2


rights, and timilly displaced I). J. l:o;«Iey oii tile position of No. S Yard . Station Clerk-Shops oil January 23, 1978. Less than ninety days after the position was abolished, Chief Clerk and Cashier, POwerton Station, was
 reestablished by Bulletin of February 3, 198, with the bulletin period

 78~ expiring on February 10, 1Z.
 Claimant was at all times pertinent a furloughed employe qualified to work the Chief Clerk's job, with seniority date of November 22, 1976. At or about the time the reestablishment bulletin was issued, she received a

 telephone notification from the Assistant to the Superintendent to cover the
 -19
 Chief Clerk position during the bulletin period. On November 4, 19817, G. L.
 hbrris notified Superintendent Alstott as follows:
 ' Dear Sir:

        Please accept this as my bid on Job Bulletin No. C-7-78 for the Position of Grief Clerk Fr Cashier, Powerton Station and as being the last regular assigned incumbent, I wish to place myself effective 7:30 k\l Pbnday, Feb 6, 1978 per Rule number 20 of Clerk's Agreement.

Cordon L. Morris #S Yard-Sta. Clerk Shops, Ill. Upon receipt of that application, the Assistant to the Superintendent again telephoned Claimant and retracted his earlier instructions to cover the position; and Mr. L.brris rather than Ms. Rescho i~as used to cover the position during the bulletin period. Bids were closed on February 10, 19W and Mr. hbrris was awarded the-reestablished permanent Position. 11.15. Rescho filed the instant claim asserting violation of her rights under Supplement No. 1.
 Review of the pertinent Agreement language convinces us that the claim should be sustained. Under rule 20-Rf'instated Positions, the right of the !'last regular assigned incumbent" to be "returned to the position without regarcT
    ' AwO Id -,3-olI


                                                    3


to seniority" does not vest until the end of the bulletin period because it is not until that time that Carrier can determine if "a senior unassigned employe bids on the position". Thus, Rule 20 per se ?ranted hlr. Dbrris no priority entitlement over anyone else to placement on the position during the bulletin period.
 Rule 10, unlike Rule 20, does speak generally to the filling of bulletined positions temporarily pending assignment, but the specific language of Suppelment No. 1 prevails in the facts of this case. Thus, Claimant's right to fill the Chief Clerk and Cashier position pending permanent assignment flows clearly from the express language of Supplement No. 1, as follows:

        It was understood that when qualified furloughed employes are available on the roster involved, the carrier was agreeable to filling established bulletined positions temporarily pending an assignment. In offez ing such work to the senior qualified available employes it was not, hoi:ever, contemplated that regular assigned employes would be up-graded to till such vacancies during the bulletin period, in order to permit furlou lied employes to return to work on other positions not under bulletin.


        It was further understood that the carrier i%ould_ not be penalized in tile event the qualified furloughed

. employes were not available to protect the vacancies -
 herein referred to.
 Carrier allegations that Claimant was not "the senior qualified available"
 furloughed employe for purposes of Supplement No. 1 were raised for the first
 time in oral argument before this Board and cannot be considered.

                        AIVARD


                    Claim sustained.


                LLuria E. E1_scHQ,!j.,Uiaibq~ui


4:. . . rtor, Lmp ovc :4~:n~er .. 1. . irvckscnmtdt, Carrier ;km er

 Da ro: .~ 7 / l 'l