The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee Eckehard Muessig when award was rendered.

(International Association of Machinists and

( Aerospace Workers

PART_I_RS TO DISPUTE: (

' (The Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway

( Company

STATEMENT OF CLAIM:

"1_ That the Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fe Railway Company (hereinafter referred to as the Carrier) violated Appendix 7, Article I, Sections 1 through 12, of the Mediation Agreement, dated September 25, 1964 Agreement, for the following named employees:

v. W. Green H. E. Lowell

N. M. Hall K. E. Moore

S. C. Bigham C. S. Smith

G_ W. Walraen Roger L. Johnson

D. R. Erb K. G. Thiessen

R. D. Strickland M. P. Pruitt, Jr.

K. W. Spann R. K. Hermett

C. D. Russell P. W. Feazell

J. W. Bridwell S. K. Simms

R. W. Fobe D. C. Hackler

(hereinafter referred to as Claimants), whom represented machinists employed at Cleburne, Texas, prior to force reduction notices dated January 31, 1989, April 4, 7.989, May 3, 1989 and June 6, 1989.

2. That accordingly, the Carrier be ordered to provide all Claimants the protective provisions of the September 25, 1964 Mediation Agreement, Appendix No. 7, Article I, Sections 1 through 12, of the current controlling agreement, Form 2642, standard, effective September 1, 1974.11

The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that:

The carrier or carriers and the employee or employees involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employee within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 1934.

This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over

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

The dispute was still pending with SBA No. 570 when ors June 1,, 1993, the parties at the National Level agreed that disputes o1= this type which had not been assigned to and argued before a Referee ar. SBA No. 570 could "be withdrawn by either party at any time prior to August 1, 1993.11 The Agreement allowed that I~a dispute withdrawn pursuant to this paragraph may be refered to any boards available under Section 3 of the RLA . . . ." (underscore ours for emphasis)

The Claimants in this case were furloughed on various dates from January 31, 1989 through May 2, 1989 from their positions at: Cleburne, Texas. The issue is whether they are entitled to the: protective provisions of the September 25, 1964 National Agreement.

Before addressing the substance of this claim, several observations are in order. First; a number of new materials and/or arguments have been presented to this Board, prirrzxily by tile Organization, which were not joined on the property. Therefore, these may riot be considered in our deliberations. Second, much is

4