PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
      Chicago & North Western Transportation Company


STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
    Claim of the System Committee of tile Brotherhood that:_


        (1) The Carrier violatedthe Agreement.when it failed to bulletin the foreman's position on Surfacing Gang 6241. (Organization File 6T-4538; Carrier FiTe 81-84-153)

    (2) The Claims presented on October 22, 1983 and

        September 13, 1983, to Assistant Division Manager

        Engineering D. E. Swenumson by Claimant R. L. Shaw

        are allowable as presented because said claims were

        not disallowed by Mr. Swenumson in accordance with

        Rule 21.


        (3) Rule 21 was further violated when the Carrier's highest appellate officer failed to notify the General Chairman of the reasons for disallowing his appeal in a letter dated June 27, 1984.


        (4) As a consequence of either 1, 2, 3 or all of the above, Claimant R. L. Shaw shall be allowed the per diem allowance claimed in his initial two letters of appeal.


OPINION OF THE BOARD
 This Board, upon the whole record and all of the evidence, finds and holds that the Employe and Carrier involved in this dispute are respectively Employe and Carrier within the meaning of

                                        9~0 - l l3


                                                  ,


the Railway Labor Act, as amended, and that the Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.
 The basic facts are undisputed. On July 5, 1983, a surfacing gang Foreman's position was vacated and was subsequently filled without bulletining by Mr. H. A. Pope, who possessed a Foreman date senior to Claimant's. Mr. Pope was regularly assigned to the Foreman position of another surfacing gang, which was, pending his return, filled by an employe who had no Foreman seniority at all. On September 13, 1983, the Claimant submitted to the Division Engineer an expense claim and attached it to a letter protesting the Carrier's failure to bulletin the positions in question and seeking the expense allowances that accrue to foremen on-gangs such as those in question. On October 22, 1983, a similar procedure was followed by the Claimant.
 On January 16, 1984, the Division Manager responded to both of the Claimant's inquiries. On March 6, 1984, the claim was appealed to the Division Manager and denied May 2,-1984. On August 16, 1984, after the claim had been appealed to the highest level the Carrier denied the claim without stating the reasons.
 At the outset, the Organization argues that the claim should be allowed as presented since the Division Manager failed to respond within 60 days. In this respect, the Board finds that a strict application of the time limit rule is

                    -2-

f inappropriate in view of the fact that the Division Engineer
 wasn't the appropriate person to whom the claim should have been
 directed.
 Beyond this, however, there are several technical
 violations of the Agreement. For instance, there is no dispute
 the positions in question were not bulletined or that the
 Carrier failed to set forth the reasons for its denial at the
 highest level. -
 In the final analysis, the real issue is the appropriate
 damages. The problem, however, is that the Claimant, even
 though the senior employe protesting the clear failure of the
 Carrier to bulletin the position, has not demonstrated that he
 was monetarily damaged by such failure. For instance, he has
 not claimed that he suffered any reduction in base wages nor
 demonstrated that he suffered, as did the Claimant in Award No.
 95 of this Board, additional expenses by not being assigned to
 the position. Apparently, instead, he is simply seeking expense -
 allowances carte blanche without respect to whether the
 Carrier's failure caused him to incur any such expenses. Thus,
 a monetary award is inappropriate and it is appropriate only to
 technically sustain the claim and offer a stern warning to the
 local Carrier officials to comply with Rule 16 (b). They should
 also be reminded that we have not nor would we hesitate in the
 future to grant monetary claims to the extent that the failure
 to bulletin a position causes a wage loss or-causes the employe
 to incur contractually covered expenses they would not otherwise
 have incurred.

                            _g_.

AWARD
    Claim sustained to the extent indicated in the Opinion.


                  Vernon, airman


      artho omay, LmPIZ691M ember r Tarrier Member


Dated: ? ,6 _ . _