PARTIES Brotherhood of Maintenance .of Way Employes
 T_0 and ___
 DISPUTE: Burlington Northern Railroad Go.
 STATEMENT "1. The Agreement was violated when the Carrier
 OF CLAIM: failed to bulletin the Bridge Tender position
 at Clatskanie, Oregon, following the
 retirement of Bridge Tender, J. Guidry.
 2. As a consequence of the aforestated violation. -
 Furloughed Bridge Tender, R. M. Benton, shall
 be allowed eight ,(8) hours' straight time pay
 for each day the Relief Bridge Tender, L. M.
 Brecht, performed service at Clatskanie
 Bridge, and he shall be allowed time and one
 half pay for all overtime bridge tender work
 performed by Mr. Brecht at Clatskanie Bridge.
 beginning sixty (60) days retroactive from the -
 date of the Vice General Chairman's claim.
 dated August 9, 1982. -
 3. The Carrier shall bulletin the position of
 Bridge Tender at-Clatskanie, Oregon."

 FINDINGS
 Upon the whole record, after hearing, the Board finds that the
 parties herein are Carrier, and Employees within the meaning of the
 Railway Labor Act, as amended, and that this Board is duly
 constituted under Public Law 89-456 and has jurisdiction of the -
 parties and the subject matter.

 The history of- the drawbridge in question goes back to approximately 1916 when the Astoria and Columbia River Railroad was constructed. In the early years following-the construction of

2 that road, there was a heavy incidence of passenger and freiqht trains crossing the drawbridge and it was necessary to have the bridge operated and manned seven days a week. According to Carrier's material, it was apparent that the passenger and freiqht


service diminished to the point, in the 1950s and 1960s, -when a -.
 full-time Bridge Tender appeared to be unnecessary. In fact. _
 :luring the first six months of 1981, the bridge was opened a toLai
 of 26 times over the six-month period. Some months it was opened
 as few as twice, and at most seven times, in one month. On
 September 23,-1981, the regularly assigned Bridge Tender on the
 particular bridge was dismissed from service. He subsequently
 elected to take early retirement in June 'of 1982, rather than the
 disciplinary action of Carrier. However, effective September
 Carrier made the determination that it would not have a full-time
 Bridge Tender assigned to the task in question but simply use
 another Maintenance of Way Employee to accomplish the opening of
 the bridge, when needed, as a secondary aspect of his job
 Therefore, following September 23, 1981-, the position was not
 bulletined or filled by the assignment of a regular full-time
 Bridge Tender. It was this action of Carrier which gave rise to
 the claim herein.

Petitioner bases his claim on the provisions of Appendix L of the Agreement which was -entered into in 1962 and provides, in pertinent part, as follows:


3ue0-~I
                                                        3


    "Memorandum of Agreement between Spokane, Portland and Seattle Railway Co. and Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes with respect to "-Accumulation of Rest Time and the Granting of Longer Consecutive Rest Periods" under Rule 27 (b) F (3) of Schedule No. 4.


    As presently constituted, the Bridge Tender positions at Clatskanie, Blindslough and John Day are filled seven days per week, effective on the date shown below, and continuinq as long as it is necessary to fill those positions seven days per week ....


The remainder of the rule set forth the work day and rest day cycles, which were rather, unique, and were to be observed by the three regularly assigned Bridge Tenders and one relief Bridge Tender assigned to the three bridges.


Petitioner relies totally on the provisions of -Appendix L as indicated above and maintains that the claim in question herein -is a continuing one, in view of the Carrier's failure to bulletin the Bridge Tender vacancy. Petitioner argues that Carrier's unilateral action was violative of the Agreement and was arbitrary and improper. In fact, the Organization specifies that the last portion of Appendix L states that the Agreement would remain in effect until changed in accordance with provisions of the Railway Labor Act, as amended. With respect to Carrier's position that the claim was not timely filed, Petitioner notes that Carrier, waived any right to question the timely presentation, in view of the fact that the issue was not raised until the final level of appeal on the property (citing Second Division Award 5223).


3I-i 60
 -'7
 4
 'kith respect to the timeliness that is -questioned, Carrier
 indicates that it started the procedure of filling the Bridge
 Tender position on an as-needed basis in September of 1981.
 However, the Organization's claim was not filed until some 11
 months later, clearly beyond the 60 days required by the
 Agreement. Furthermore, Carrier maintains that the argument
 raised by the Organization that the claim was a continuing one
 simply has no merit. Carrier argues that the claim was based on a -
 single event, which was the failure of Carrier to rebulletin the
 Bridge Tender position when it was vacated on September 23, 1981.
 Carrier indicates that there have been many awards holding that -
 such a continuing claim based upon a single event is incorrect
 (e-g., Third Division Award No. 12984). On the merits, Carrier
 points out that Appendix L was arrived at and written into the
 Ac reement for one purpose only, that is to provide a means of
 accumulating rest days for, the Bridge Tenders. Carrier insists
 that that Agreement and that language does not, in any sense,
 mandate the continuation of the positions beyond the time when
 they were needed. In short, there was no guarantee in Appendix L -
 that the positions must be maintained indefinitely.

 After examining the record carefully, the Board concludes that the claim was not- timely filed on its face. However, even assuming arguendo that Petitioner is correct and the claim was not filed untimely, since it was a continuing one, on the merits, the claim does not have any validity. It is apparent that Appendix L does

                                                  34 6 b--1i

5
 not guarantee that the Drawbridge Tender position would be filled -
 forever. That position is no different than another position
 which is no longer justified by Carrier when the work decreases to
 a de minimus basis. In fact, Appendix L contemplates the
 possibility of the positions not being filled in the second
 paragraph when it states: ....continuing as long as it is
 necessary to fill those positions seven days per week." Carrier
 is not estopped from abolishing a position when the work
 disappears or diminishes to the point where it is not required.
 There is nothing in Appendix L or the Agreement which requires
 that the position be maintained indefinitely. For that reason
 alone, the claim must be denied.

 AWARD -

      Claim denied.


IYM. Lieberman, Neutral-Chairman

%~ __ ____w-__ _

W Hodynsky, ar ~e Member
                                              -711


                              F. H. Funk, Employee Member

                                q/a%~


St. Paul, Minnesota
 1988

                                                  '~4 b0-~71