(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad Company

1) Carrier violated the Clerks' Rules Agreement in Seniority District No. 4 when it arbitrarily reduced forces by abolishing positions starting at 11:59 p.m., February 29, 1980 and continuing to April 18, 1980 without giving the employes affected thereby "not less than five (5) working days advance notice" nor did it issue a standard permanent abolishment notice until April 18, 1980.

 2) Carrier shall now be required to compensate all employes affected by the temporary suspension of their positions an additional eight (8) hours pay at the rate of their assigned position which was abolished, or at their protected rate, whichever is greater, starting either on March 1, 1980 or on the date their respective positions were temporarily abolished, and for each workday until their positions were permanently abolished as of 11:59 p.m. April 18, 1980.



3) Carrier shall be required to compensate all those employes who were displaced by employes whose positions were temporarily abolished as shown in Attachment A, an additional eight (8) hours pay at the rate of their assigned positions, or their protected rate whichever is greater, starting either on March 1, 1980 or on the date they were affected, and for each workday until April 19, 1980.

OPINION OF BOARD: In this claim the Organization asserts that the Carrier
 violated the Agreement by failing to give five working
 days advance notice to employes in Seniority District No. 4 of the abolishment
 of their positions starting on February 29, 1980. The Carrier responds that it
 was not required to give advance notice.


The positions were abolished under a court-ordered embargo issued on February 25, 1980 (Order No. 290-A). The background and provisions of the Order are described in detail in the Board's opinion in Award No. 24440 relating to employes in Seniority District No. 1 represented by the Organization.

 The attachment to the claim shows the following facts as ascertained by the Organization: Most of the positions were abolished on February 29, 1980, by a Carrier designated "emergency" force-reduction notice dated February 26, 1980. Six others appear to have been abolished on March 7, 1980, but no notice date as to them is indicated in the record.

 The claim letter was dated April 28, 1980; was sent by certified mail and received on April 29, 1980.

 This claim is identical in basic respects with that made in Award Ho. 24440. It alleges a violation of Rule 12 (a) of the Clerks' Agreement by an asserted failure to give "not less than five (5) working days advance notice" to affected employes of the abolishment of their positions by the "emergency" force-reduction notices. It seeks compensation, until the issuance of standard permanent abolishment notices, for all those affected and appends a list of some of the positions and of the names of some incumbents (Item No. 2). It seeks similar. compensation for those who were displaced by employes whose positions were abolished (Item No. 3). It also requests a joint check of Carrier records to identify unnamed employes under Items No. 2 and No. 3.

 The Carrier's response as submitted challenges the claim on these jurisdictional-procedural grounds: (1) It is invalid as to unnamed and unidentified employes. (2) It improperly seeks a joint check of the Carrier's records. (3) It makes an improper request for compensation in the nature of a "penalty".

 As to the merits, the Carrier defends its action on the ground that it was relieved of the advance notice obligation because the court-ordered embargo created "emergency conditions" within the meaning of the exception to Rule 12 (a).

 All contentions made by the Carrier as to this claim were made by it in the claim submitted to this Board in Award loo, 24440 consideration there to these contentions.

 Upon a thorough analysis of the record before it in this claim, and for the reasons fully stated in Award No. 24440j, the Board finds as follows:
1. Unnamed employes have been adequately identified as occupants of the positions listed in the attachment to the claim. They are deemed included in Item No. 2 and are entitled to be appropriately compensated for any monetary loss they may have suffered by reason of any violation of the Rule 12 (a) notice requirement as to them. It is reasonable to allow a joint check of the Carrier's records to ascertain their identity.

 2. Unnamed occupants of positions not listed (Item No. 2) and individuals who assertedly may have been displaced by employes whose positions were abolished (Item No. 3) are not adequately identified and are not deemed to be included in
                        Award Number 24442 Page 3

                      Docket Number CL-24238


the claim. They are not entitled to any compensatory award, and a joint check of the Carrier's records to find and identify them is unwarranted, The claim as to them must be dismissed.

 3. The exception to Rule 12(a) does not apply to the facts presented, as no emergency under the exception has been shown to exist. Accordingly, the Carrier violated Rule 12 (a) by failing to give employes properly encompassed wit7hin the claim no less than five working days notice of the abolishment of their positions. Item No. 1 should be sustained.

 With respect to the remedy appropriate to the violation found, for the reasons fully stated in Award No. 24440, the Board concludes as follows:
1. Each employe deemed in finding numbered 1, above, to be included in the claim who received less than five working days advance notice of the abolishment of his or her p to five days, for which he/she was not given such notice, at the rate of his/her assigned position or at his/her protected rate, whichever is greater.

 2. There is no rational basis for compensating employes whose positions were abolished for each workday until the issuance of a standard permanent abolishment notice.

 3. Employes referred to in finding numbered 3, above, are not entitled to any remedy.

        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 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

        That the Agreement was violated.


                          A W A R D


        Claim disposed of in accordance with the Opinion.

Award Number 24442
 Docket Number CL-24238

 Page 4

 NATIONAL RAIIROAD ADJUSTMENT BARD
 By Order of Third Division

 Attest: Acting Executive Secretary
 National Railroad Adjustment Board

 By i. C
 Rosemarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant

 Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 29th day of June.. 1983.

 --'~VE D

 ~~'o Gi:-