(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen
 PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
 (J. F. Aasb and R. C. Haldeman, Trustees of the
 ( Property of Lehigh Valley Railroad Company,
 ( Debtor

 STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood
 of Railroad Signalmen on the Lehigh Valley Railroad
 Company that:



























5. W. S. Quinn, -Pay at Signalman rate for a

6. D. A. Spigarelli, - Pay at Signalman rate for a total
 Signalman of 7 days, August 23 through 31,
 1971 (8 hours per day).
 7. J. E. Herds, -Pay at Signalman rate for a total
 Signalman of 23 days, July 26 through
 August 25, 1971.
 8. L. J. Dowd, - Pay at Signalman rate for a total
 Signalman of 23 days, July 26 through
 August 25, 1971.
 9. F. X. Jewell. -Pay at Signal Foreman rate for a
 Signal Foreman total of 18 days, July 26 through
 August 18, 1971. Car mileage 150
 miles per day @ 9¢, for 5 days,
 August 19 through 25, 1971.
 10. W. F. Bubick, -Pay at Signal Helper rate for a
 Signal Helper total of 23 days, July 26 through
 August 25, 1971.
 11. G. J. Fech, -Pay for 3 hours' riding time daily
 Signalman for 23 days. Car mileage 130
 miles per day a 9¢, for a total
 of 16 days.
 12. A. P. Brown, -Pay at Signalmaa rate for 5 days.
 Signalman
 13. R. Azzalina, -Pay at Signal Maintainer rate for
 Signal Maintainer a total of 22 days, July 27 to
 August 26, 1971.

 14. C. T. Heitzman, -Pay for 40 hours Q $0.0737 per hour,
 Relay Inspector 10 hours @ $4 .4498 per hour. Car
 mileage, 84 miles per day Q 9f, for
 a total of 5 days.

 15. H. McPherson, -Pay at Signalman rate for 1 day,
 Signalman July 26, 1971.
                    Docket Number SG-20276


            _NOTE: This Statement of Claim is identical to one

            being submitted concurrently to the Disputes

            Committee established under the February 7, 1965

            Agreement, Mediation Case A-7128. That tribunal

            is being requested to rule on the issues involving.

            that Agreement, whereas the remaining issues are

            to be adjudicated by this Board.


OPINION OF BOARD: This case presents claimed violations of the controlling
 Signalmen's Agreement on the property and of the
 February 7, 1965 National Agreement. The February 7, 1965 Agreement
 provides for the establishment of a Disputes Committee to resolve disputes
 involving its interpretation or application. That Committee, herein
 after Special Board of Adjustment No. 605, rendered Award No. 368 on
 October 18, 1973 on the identical claims herein insofar as they relate
 to alleged violations of the February 7, 1965 Agreement. In that Award,
 the Special Board resolved each of the claims except No. 10 (W. F. Bubick)
 and No. 12 (A. P. Brown). Claim No. 10 was remanded to the parties for
 determination of Bubick's protected status, under the February 7, 1965
 Agreement, with continuing jurisdiction in S.B.A. No. 605 for further
 resolution as necessary. Claim No. 12 was dismissed by the Special Board
 since Brown is concededly a nonprotected employe under the February 7,
 1965 Agreement and the jurisdiction of S.B.A. No. 605 is limited to the
 interpretation and application of that Agreement and no other Agreements.

        In light of all the foregoing, the parties stipulate and we

find that the only claims remaining before this Division for resolution
 are Nos. 10 and 12. Moreover, under generally recognized principles of
 res udicata the determination of S. B. A. No. 605 will be recognized by us
 as determinative of those claims insofar as they allege violations of the
 February 7, 1965 Protective Agreement. Accordingly, our focus on Nos. 10
 and 12 is concerned only with the allegations therein of violations of the
 controlling Signalmen's Agreement.

 The rules that apply to a force reduction of "unprotected" employes are Section 4 of Article IV of the Signalmen's Agreement, as amended by the June 5, 1962 National Agreement, and the 16-hour "emergency layoff provisions" of the August 21, 1954 Agreement. The net effect of these contractual provisions is to require five (5) working days written advance notice to such employes, except where emergency conditions prevail which cause suspension of Carrier's operations and renders the work to emergency conditions such as flood, snow, storm, hurricane, earthquake, fire or strike cause such an effect on Carrier's operations and on the work of the employes, the 5-day notice rule is modified so that no more than sixteen (16) hours notice need be given.
                          Award Number 20542 Page 4

                          Docket Number SG-20276


        With the foregoing contractual guidelines established, we turn to the claims remaining for our consideration. Careful examination of the record herein shows that Claim No. 10 (W. F. Bubick) alleges improper abolishment of his position. However, Carrier asserts and Petitioner does not effectively refute that Bubick's position as Signal Helper was not abolished; rather he was displaced by a senior employe who had in turn been displaced from his position. In these circumstances, Bubick was secondarily affected, if at all, by abolishment and Claim No. 10 must accordingly be denied.


        Claim No. 12 (A. P. Brawn) is on a different footing. Carrier does not deny that Brown was given less than 5 working days advance notice of the abolishment of his position on July 24, 1971. Carrier asserts however that the "16 hour rule" applies to Brown's case because of a strike against Norfolk & Western Railway on July 24, 1971 by the United Transportation Union and because of a threatened strike of Bethlehem Steel Company by the United Steelworkers of America, which did in fact materialize on August 1, 1971. Carrier argues that the strike and threatened strike "affected the business of the Lehigh Valley Railroad", and therefore there was no violation when it gave Brown 16 hours notice rather than 5 working days.


        This record contains no evidence that as of July 23, 1971 the strikes in question produced a suspension in Carrier's operations in whole or in part; neither did they render Claimant Brown's work non existent nor impossible of performance. In other words no such "emergency" existed as is contemplated by the "emergency layoff provisions" of the August 21, 1954 Agreement. In these circumstances 5 working days notice should have been given pursuant to Section 4 of Article IV of the Signalmen's Agreement and Claimant Brown who received less notice is entitled to compensation. Accordingly, Carrier shall compensate Claimant A. P. Brown for 5 days beginning July 26, 1971.


              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;


        That the Carrier and the Employes involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and Employee 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


        That the Agreement was violated to the extent indicated in the Opinion.


J
 Award Number 20542
 Docket Number SG-20276

 A W A R D
Part (a) is

        Part (b) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. S. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15.


sustained to the

Claim Dismissed Claim Dismissed Claim Dismissed Claim Dismissed Claim Dismissed Claim Dismissed Claim Dismissed Claim Dismissed Claim Dismissed Claim Denied

Claim Dismissed Claim Sustained Claim Dismissed Claim Dismissed Claim Dismissed


ATTEST: 114W., &a /wLrme
          Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 13th

 Page 5

 extent indicated in the opinion.

 (W. Kowalow)
 (C. P. Cannon)
 (W. R. Wygrola)
 (D. E. Allardyce)
 (W. S. Quinn)
 (D. N. Spigarelli)
 (J. E. Herda)
 (L. J. Dowd)
 (F. X. Jewell)
 (W. F. Hubick)
 (G. J. Fech)
 (A. P. Brown)
 (R. Azzalina)
 (C. T. Heitzman)
 (H. McPherson)

 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT HOARD
 By Order of Third Division

 day of December 1974.