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




































Deer Lodge



W. H. Scott 76600, P.F.i.
 B. J. 'Wales 51310, Steno-Clerk
 J. S. Home 51380, Steno-Clerk
 E. Eumphreville 18570, Clerk
 Denton J. P. Shannon 87150, agt-Opr
 Druxmond E. C. Reeves 76800, Agt-Opr
 Fairfield/
 Chateau D. J. %-light 76650, Agt-Opr
 Forsyth W. W. Worlie 75800, Ag'-Op=
 Geraldaine G. J. Smith 78250, Agt-Op=
 Great Falls 13. G. Morse 78500, Cashier
 i5. J. Tesch 70530, Rate & Geal.Clk
 J. D. Shannon 7x550, Operator
 Sarlowton D. Laziggston/H.
 7-usher 75450, Agent
 R. M. Ynudson 74200, Steno Clerk
 J. 14. Hay 75510, Operator
 D, PI. Lile Relief Opr/Clk
 E. . PicCaffree Relief l.,-Opr
J. ?. Rice 754°0,, Yard Clerk-Cr_cr
 H. J. Stiles 28180, Cler'_:
 HauS^an R. E. Jones 77150, Agent
 T.-Roat Relief Agt-Opr.
 Highwood H. L. Tauscher 78300, Age
 V. A. Ttonnes
































3) The Ca`iier shall be required to compensate all thoseemployes









OPINION OF BOARD: This claim protests Carrier's abolishment on October 29,
 1979, of seventy bulletined positions without providing five working .nays' notice to the affected employees. The Organization maintains that the failure to It seeks appropriate compensation for the incumbents of those positions as well as compensation for other employees displaced by the incumbents as a result of Carrier's abolition of the positions in question. Carrier defends on the grounds that the abolition occurred as a result of an emergency, thereby obviating the Rule 12(a). Carrier also raises certain procedural objections to the filing of the claim which are discussed in detail below.
On December 19, 1977, Carrier filed a petition for reorganization under the Federal Barkruptcy Act, 11 U.S.C. 99205. Pursuant to that petition, Judge Thomas R. Mcl·iillen of the United States District Court - Eastern Division appointed S On April 23, 1979, Trustee Hillman petitioned the Court to institute an embargo over approximately e the Court denied the Trustee's embargo request.
On August 10, 1979 the Trustee filed a second petition with the Court seeking an embargo of certain of Carrier's 'lines as of October 1, 1979. On September 27, 1979 the Court ordered the embargo, effective November 1, 1979. In addition, the Court's denial of the Trustee's first petition was reversed by the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit on October 2, 1979.
Accordingly, on October 26, 1979, Judge Mc"Qillen issued Order No. 2200. That order directed Richard r. Ogilvie as Trustee of the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad Company (Carrier) to embargo Carrier's freight operations on certain of its lines effective 12:01 a.m. (C.D.T.). November 1, 1979. The Order reads, in relevant part:
        "In accordance with Order No. 22OA dated September 27, 1979r this Court's decision dated the same date, and the decision of the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in In Re ~hica o'.ilwaukee St. Pate and Pacific Railrop- Co., Nos. 79-1 91, 79-1 75, 79-1 3, 79-1 9 7th Cir. Oct. 2, 1979), IT IS H1MEBY ORDMRED that:


          1. Richard B. Ogilvie, as Trustee of the Chicago, !~ilwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad Company is directed to embargo at 12:01 a.m. C.D.T., on Vo··ember 1, 19',9 all of the Debtor's freight operations on lines whicn are not shown on Appendix A, either as solid or dotted lines, nor listed on Appendix B, or Appendix C.


        5. As of November 1, 1979, or as soon thereafter as is n-actical, the Trustee shall furlough all employees not required for the services and operations an^'_ implementation of a plan of reorganization. " (Mnphasis supplied.)

                  Award ?lumber 24450 Page S

                  Docket ',a.rber CL-2!:215


On October 30, 1979, '~=. :. :d. Harrington, Carrier's Vice Presiient - :_-nagement Services issued a memorandum addressed to ".·iployes Affected by Force Reduction in which he advised the rec_oieats that as a result c: the Court ordered embargo of certain Milwaukee Road lines their _oositions ".may be affected by force reduction effective November 1, 1979."

 In addition, on October 29, 1979, one day prior to Harrington's memorandum, Acting Division Manager D. H. Burke issued a notice to "nonoperating Craft Employes in t seventy bulletined positions and provided in relevant part that:

        "In view ox" the U. S. District Court directed embargo of certain Milwaukee Road Lines, your position is abolished effective 11:59 p.m. (C.S.T.), October 31, 1979 under 'the emergency force reduction provision of your union contracts. This will confirm verbal advice given you in this regard."


As a result of Carrier's action, the Organization filed the instant claim on December 12, 1979 with :".r. G. Y. Neu, Acting Division Manager-Administration. It was denied by Assistant Divisio 19130. The claim was subsequently handled in the usual manner on the property, whereupon it was appealed to this Board for adjudication.

 The Organization contends that the Carrier's abolition of the above referenced positions violates the Agreement between the parties, particularly Rule 12.

        Rule 12 reads, in relevant part:


        "Rule 12 - Reducing Forces


        (a) In reducing forces, employes whose positions are to be abolished will be given not less than five (5) :corking days advance notice except:

          1. Rules, agreements or practices, however established,

          that require advance notice to employes before abolishing positions or making force reductions are hereby modified to eliminate any requirement for such notices under emergency conditions such as flood, snow storm, hurricane, tornado, earthquake, fire, or labor dispute other than as covered by subparagraph 2 below, provided that such conditions result in suspension of a carrier's o whole or in part. It is understood and agreed that such force reductions will be con=fined solely to those work locations directly affected by any suspension of operations. It is further understood anal agreed th emergency force reduction and reports for work for =,is position without having been previously notified not to report, shall receive four hours' pay at the applicable rate for his position. Tf an employe works any portion of the day he will be :aid accordance with existing rules.

                  Award Number 24450 Page 6

                  Docket Number CL-24215


        "(c) When bulletined positions are abolished, notice will be placed on all bulletin boards in the seniority district affected and a copy of same will be furnished to the local and general chairman. Such bulletin notice shall include the names of employes filling the positions abolished at the time abolished." (Emphasis supplied.)


In the Organization's view, Rule 12 (a) is clear and unambiguous in that employes whose positions are abolished must be given five (5) working days' notice of such abolishment except for the emergency circumstances listed in the rule. Obviously, the Court ordered embargo is not a "flood, snow storm, hurricane, tornado, earthquake, fire or labor dispute." Thus, the Organization asserts _hat it is not an emergency under Rule 12(a).

 Furthermore, according to the Organization, the embargo cannot be considered an emergency even if other events not listed in Rule 12 (a) are deemed to constitute emergencies. This is so because Carrier was well aware as of September 27, 1979, that its lines would be embargoed on November 1, 1979, unless the Court of Appeals reversed the District Court. Also, the Organization contends that on October 26, 1979, the date of Judge McMillen's final order, it advised Carrier's representatives that they would be in violation of the Agreement i
Additionally, the Organization argues that Carrier's actions in this dispute violate Rifle 12(c), second paragraph. That clause requires that when all bulletined positions are abolished, "notice will be placed on all bulletin boards in the seniority district affected and a copy of same will be furnished to the local and general chairman." Rule 12(c) is explicit and allows for no exceptions. Thus, the Organization contends that Carrier violated the rule when it failed to send copies of the abolishment notices to either its local or general chairman.

 Accordingly, the Organization seeks additional eight hours compensation for the incumbents of th each work day thereafter until they were returned to service (Item 2 of claim). Additionally, the Organization asks that all employees displaced by those holding the bulletined pos 3 of claim).

 Carrier, on the other hand, both denies that any violation of the Agreement exists and raises two procedural objections to the form of the claim. First, Carrier insists that even if a violation of the Agreement is proven, any award by this Board granting monetary damages would be in the nature of a penalty and, absent clear language authorizing penalty payment, violative of the Railway Labor Act. In Carrier's view, the Organization is seeking sums of money for certain employees for work they did not perform. Thus, these employees would be receiving a windfall and Carrier would be burdened with a penalty were the claim to be sustained as to monetary damages. Carrier notes that the Agreement does not provide for penalty payment. Therefore, for this Board to award monetary damages where none had been incurred by the employees involved would me
                  Award Number 241350 Page 7

                  Docket Number CL-24215


fying the provisions of the existing Agreement. Clearly, the Board does not have the authority to add to, subtract or in any way, modify ;;nose provisions. Accordingly, Carrier concludes that this Board is without jurisdiction to order any monetary damages in ,..his case.

 Second, Carrier asserts that to the extent the claim asks for compensation for unnamed individua the names of certain individuals by a check of payroll records, it is invalid. Carrier points out that Item 3 of the claim seeks compensation for "those ema1_ byes who were supplied.) Tha Organization adds, under Item 3 that "the employes ...displaced by employes whose positions were abolished (arej to be determined by joint check of payroll and other necessary records."

 Carrier further notes that in Item 2 of the claim: one of the seventy individuals whose positions were abolished is not named. Rather, he or she is identified only as follows:

          "Deer Lodge - Pos. Flo. 74070 PBX Clerk Where occupants of positions are not listed, same to be determined by joint check of Carrier's records."


Carrier maintains that Item 3 of the claim is invalid in that it seeks compensation for individu or on behalf of the employes involved." Thus, according to Carrier, where the claim is presented, as here, on behalf of unknown and unnamed indivudals, it must be dismissed.

 In addition, Carrier argues that absolutely no schedule r·Le and;/or agreement between the parties provides for a joint check of Carrier's records to determine the names of individuals allegedly aggrieved. Thus, it is Carrier's position that to th ascertain the names of aggrieved individuals, they are similarly invalid.

 As to the merits of the dispute, Carrier contends that the embargo ordered by Judge McMillen on October 26, 1979 clearly constitutes an emergency of the type contemplated by Rule 72(3)1. Carrier notes that the list of emergencies in that rule is dispute" are only examples of the type of emergencies which may occur.

 In Carrier's view, a court ordered embargo, to begin at a specific time on a specific date constitutes an emergency of the utmost magnitude. In fact, according to Carrier, on at least, seven prior occasions the parties to this dispute have recognized that an embargo constitutes an emergency, thereby allowing for temporary position abolishments under the _orov?sions of Rule 2 (a )1. Furthermore, Carrier notes that the Interstate Commerce ~cc~issicn has specifically recognized that embargoes and even ziL^eazened embargoes constitute emergencies,
                Award Number 244(5o Page 6

                  Docket Number CLr24215


Thus, according to Carrier, the embargo order of the Federal Court clearly was an emergency within the meaning of Rule 12 (a )1. As such, Carrier was not obligated to give five working days' notice when it abolished seventy positions as a result of the embargo order. Therefore, Carrier asks that the claim be denied on its merits as well as on procedural grounds.

 Both parties have cited numerous awards of this Board in support of their respective positions.

        The relevant facts of this case are nearly identical with those in

Award No. 24446, decided herewith. The rationale for our decision is set
 forth in great detail in that case.- There we decided that as to Carrier's procedural objections, a we concluded that to the extent Items (2) and (3) of the claim referred to unnamed or unidentified individuals, they were invalid. Here, the one unnamed individual listed in Item (2) is readily identifiable through his or her bulletined position number. of the claim are proper Claimants, while Item (3) of the claim is deemed invalid.

        As to the merits, we concluded in Award No. 24446 that under

the facts of that case, as here, the Court ordered embargo on October 26, 1979
 did not constitute an emergency as defined by Rule 72 of the Agreement. How
 ever, in the instant dispute, Claimants received two days' advance notice of
 the abolishment of their positions, since they were notified on October 29,
 1979 that their positions would be abolished, effective October 31, 1979·

 Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above and in Award go. 24446've will award each of the incumbents of the positions listed in Item (2) of the claim eight hours' pay at the rate of his or her assigned position or protected rate, whichever is greater, for November 1, 1979 and for each day until he or she returned to service, up to a maximum of three days' pay. Thus, Items (1) and (2) of the claim are sustained to the extent indicated in the Opinion. Item (3) of the claim is denied.

        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.

                  Award :fi=ber 24450 Page 9

                  Docket ;:umber CD-24215

                  A W A R D


        Claim sustained in accordance with the Ooi=ion.


                          NATIONAL nAIIROAD ADJU'j2·LENT M;RD

                          By Order of Third Division


ATT3ST: Acting Executive Secretary
 National Railroad Adjustment Board

 By ll
 Rosemarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant

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