(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks, ( Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (Brooklyn Eastern District Terminal

1. The Carrier a non struck Railroad Terminal violated the meaning and intent of the Clerks' Agreement especially Rules 10, 24, 48, 50, the February 7, 1965 National J and (b) of the February 25, 1971 Agreement that deals with the elimination of advance notice requirements only in case of emergency conditions as set forth therein, the rule does not apply to other than emergency situations, where a Carrier is not affected by an emergency situation it cannot use this Rule to reduce forces or abolish positions.

 2. The Carrier a non struck Railroad Terminal shall pay the employes named at the pro rata rate of each and every day they were held out of service the amount they would have received minus any unemployment benefits they may receive had they worked between July 28, 1971 and August 3, 1971. The following are the employes aff A. Muller, C. Bartashunas, J. Buonomo, A. Schapiro, R. Colucci, D. Krocaynaski, A. Lombardo, L. Carrington, T. Tuk, W. Kretzmer, R. Griffith, J. Riley, F. Faliciano, R. Mango, V. C C. Lede, J. Gruz, R. Griffin, F. Krysiak, R. Rosado, C. Betcher, R. Lebron, F. Thomas, A. Lebron, F. Rorie, L. Rodriguez, J. Jackson and any whose names were unintentionally omitted from this list.

 OPINION OF BOARD: Between July 28, 1971 and August 3, 1971, selective strike
 action was taken by United Transportation Union members
 against certain of the Nation's Carriers. This Carrier was not struck but
 other Carriers which supplied it with interchange cars were shut down. This
 caused a decline in the number of car arrivals, particularly from the Lehigh
 Valley Railroad where operations were suspended. The Lehigh Valley float
 bridge operation, which is one of this Carrier's principal points of inter
 change, was discontinued for the duration of the labor dispute.

 Although it was a non-struck Railroad Terminal, Carrier reduced forces under its Clerical Agreement by approximately thirty-five (35) employees, invoking certain emergency force reduction clauses under that Agreement. Carrier claims that they ha


provisions of Article VII of the Clerks' National Agreement dated February
 25, 1971. The Clerks claim that inasmuch as the Carrier was a non-struck
 Railroad terminal they could not avail themselves of the provisions of
 Article VII of the National Agreement.
 Article VII, entitled "Force Reduction Rules", provides as follows:
 "Insofar as applicable to the employees covered by this Agree
 ment, Article VI of the Agreement of August 21, 1954 is here
 by amended to read as follows:
 (a) Rules, ag.reements or practices, however established,
 that require advance notice to employees before abolishing
 positions or making force reductions are hereby modified
 to eliminate any requirement for such notices under emer
 gency conditions, such as flood, snow storm, hurricane, tor
 nado, earthquake, fire or labor dispute other than as cov
 ered by paragraph (b) below, provided that such conditions
 result in suspension of a carrier's operations in whole or
 in part. It is understood and agreed that such force re
 ductions will be confined solely to those work locations
 directly affected by any suspension of operations. It is t
 further understood and agreed that notwithstanding the fore
 going, any employee who is affected by an emergency force
 reduction and reports for work for his position without
 having been previously notified not to report, shall receive
 four hours' pay at the applicable rate for his position. If
 an employee works any portion of the day he will be paid in
 accordance with existing rules.
 (b) Rules, agreements or practices, however established,
 that require advance notice before positions are abolished or
 forces are reduced are hereby modified so as not to require
 advance notice where a suspension of a carrier's operations
 in whole or in part i., due to a labor dispute between said
 Carrier and any of its employees."

 Our reading of Article VII quoted above leads us to conclude that a Carrier can abolish positions and make force reductions under specified emergency conditions, including labor disputes, if such conditions result in the suspension of Carrier's operations in whole or in part. In effecting such emergency force reductions, the Carrier must limit the scope of the reduction to a work locatio With respect to emergency force reductions arising from a labor dispute, a distinction is made between labor disputes involving Carrier's own employees, and labor disputes involving individuals not in the hire of the Carrier.
                    Award Number 20059 Page 3

                    Docket Number CL-20068


This distinction does not address itself to whether or not the Carrier can avail itself of the right to reduce forces or abolish positions but addresses itself only to the type of notice that is required in the defined emergency. Under paragraph (a), if the Carrier is a non-struck Carrier and its operations are suspended in whole or in part as a result of a labor dispute, it must notify the employe whose position is abolished or who is affected by a force reduction prior to reporting for work. If the employe is not so notified not to report he is entitled to receive four (4) hours pay. Under the provisions of paragraph (b), i Carrier's operations in whole or in part is between said Carrier and any of its employes, the requirement that an employe be notified not to report for work prior to the starting time of his assignment is not necessary, and if an employe does report the Agreement does not require that he receive the four (4) hours pay applicable to a non-struck Carrier.

 it is our holding that the distinction between paragraphs (a) and (b) of Article VII of the February 25, 1971 Agreement deals with the notice requirements prior to effecting emergency force reductions in cases of labor disputes, and not to the issue of whether or not a Carrier can make such emergency reductions when their operations are suspended in whole or in part as the result of a labor dispute affecting their operations. In the instant case, the Carrier has demonstrated that their operations were affected by a labor dispute. Moreover, they have demonstrated that the force reductions they made were confined to the work locations directly affected by the suspension of operations.

 The Organization has argued that being a non-struck Carrier the Terminal Company was unable to avail itself of the Rule. We do not think that the language of the Rule supports Petitioner's argument. Failing to offer any evidence contradicting Carrier's evidence that an emergency did exist, we will deny the claim.

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


        That the parties waived oral hearing;


That the Carrier and the Employes involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and Employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934;

 That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and

        The Claim will be denied.

                    Award Number 20059 Page 4

                    Docket Number CL-20068

                    A W A R D


        Claim denied.


                          NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                          By Order of Third Division


ATTEST:
        Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 14th day of December 1973.

 f