(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (George P. Baker, Richard C. Bond, Jervis Langdon, Jr. ( and Willard Wirtz, Trustees of the Property of ( Penn Central Transportation Company, Debtor

STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of Railroad

Signalmen on the former New York Central Railroad Company

(Buffalo and East):

On behalf of D. A. Nolen and J. W. Kelly for additional compensation account not recalled as required by the Merger Agreement nor worked full time as required by the Signalmen's Agreement, and that their positions be bulletined as required by the Signalmen's Agreement. (Carrier's File: 245-M)

OPINION OF BOARD: On may 20, 1964, the former Pennsylvania Railroad Company

and the former New York Central Railroad Company entered into

an agreement with their Signal Department employes, This agreement was for the

protection of employes in the event of a merger of the new companies. On February

1, 1968, the two companies merged. The Claimants in this case, Nolen and Kelly,

were on a furloughed status prior to the merger. They were entitled to be re

called to service on the date of the merger In accordance with the merger agree

ment. Carrier, in this instance, has computed Mr. Nolen as being entitled to

17 days per month and has computed Mr. Kelly to be entitled to 11 days per month

on the basis of one-twelfth of the total days they worked during the 12 months

period prior to the effective date of the merger. The Organization contends that

Claimants should have been placed on a full time basis (40 hours per week minimum)

and that they should be paid for all time lost for the reason that they were not

timely recalled. The Organization also contends that this position should be

bulletined. Carrier contends that under Section 1(e) of the Merger Protective

Agreement, this dispute should be submitted to an arbitration committee for con

sideration and determination and that this Board has no jurisdiction to hear

this matter. Carrier also contends that the claim has been properly computed;

and that since the involved Claimants were part time employes, prior to the Mer

ger Agreement, Carrier was unddr no obligation to bulletin these positions.

This Board finds that this dispute should have been referred to the Arbitration Committee provided for and agreed to by both parties under the Merger Protective Agreeme case. See Section 1(e) of the Merger Protective Agreement involved in this dispute.

.r r

Award Number 19405 Page 2

Docket Number SG-19234

FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:

That the parties waived oral hearing;

A W A R D