Ida Klaus., Referee


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

              STAM·MNT O' CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood (GL-9477) that:


1) Carrier violated the Clerks' Rules Agreement in Seniority District No. 6 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 employer 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.
              NOTE: Some of the claimants and positions held are listed in Attachment A.


        Where positions are not listed and/or where the occupants of the positions are not listed in Attachment A, same to be determined by joint check of Carrier's reco


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.
              NOTE: The employes and monetary wage due those employer displaced by employes whose positions were abolished to be determined by joint check of payroll and other necessary records.

                      Award Number 24444 Page 2

                      Docket Number C-24240


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 employees in Seniority District No. 6 of the abolishment of
 their positions starting on February 29, 1980.

 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 employees in Seniority District No. 1 represented by the Organization.

 The attachment to the claim shows the following facts as ascertained by the Organization: Some positions referred to were abolished on February 29, 19800 by Carrier-designated "emergency" force-reduction notices dated February 27, 1980. Others were abolished on March 18, 1980, by similar notices dated March 17, 1980; and some, on March 21, 1980, by notices dated March 17 or 19, 1980. Other abolishments occurred on various dates in April, on notices of less than five days.

 This claim is identical in basic respects with that made in Award No. 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" employees of the abolishment of their positions, starting on February 29, 1980. It seeks compensation for them from the date of the forcereduction notices to the issuance of a
and it appends a list of some positions and of the names of some incumbents
 (Item No. 2). It seeks similar compensation for those who were displaced by employees whose positions were abolished.

 It also requests a joint check of Carrier records to identify unnamed employees under Items No. 3.

 The Carrier's response is also identical in all essential respects with that submitted in Award No. 24440. Stated in broad terms, its challenge to the claim is that: (1) It is time-bar=ed under Rule 36. (2) It is invalid as to unnamed and unidentified employees. (3) It improperly seeks a ,joint check of the Carrier's records. (4) It makes an improper request for compensation in the nature of a "penalty".

 the substance of its action on tonal procedural arguments, the Carrier defends
 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 72(a).

 On thorough analysis of the record before it, and for the reasons fully stated in Award No. 24440, the Board finds as follows:
            1. The claim is not barred under Rule 36, as it was "presented" in timely fashion. It is reasonable to assume from its certification number that it was mailed simul

                      Award Number 24444 page 3

                      Docket Number CL-242110


        2. Unnamed employees have been adequately identified as occupants

        of the positions listed in the attachment to the claim. They

        are deemed included in item No. 2 of the claim and are entitled

        to be appropriately compensated for ashy 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 iden

        tity.)


          3- Individuals who assertedly may have been displaced by employees whose positions were abolished are not adequately identified and are not deemed to be included in 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 (Item No. 3) must be dismissed.


          The exception to Rule 12 (a) does not apply to the facts presented, as no emergency has been shown t no less than five working days notice of the abolishment of their positions. Item No. 1 should be sustained.


With respect to the remedy appr~opriate to the violation found, for the reasons fully stated in Award No. 24440, the Board concludes as follows:

          1. Each employee deemed in finding numbered 2, above, to be included in the claim who received less than five working days advance notice of the abolishment of his or her position is entitled to be compensated for each up 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 employees whose positions were abolished by each workday until the date of issuance of a standard permanent abolishment notice.


          3. Employees referred to in Claim Item No. 3 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;

                      Award Number 24444 Page 4

                      Docket Number CL-24240


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.


                                NATIONAL RAILROAD AATUS .~I' T BOARD

                                By Order of Third Division


ATTEST: Acting Executive Secretary
 National Railroad Adjustment Board

 By
 Rosemarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant

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

 y r ._