Martin F. Scheinman, 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

              STAT5= CF CLAIM: Claim of the System Co=ittee of the Brotherhood (GL-9468) that:


        1) Carrier violated the Clerks' Rules Agreement in Seniority District No. 7 when it arbitrarily reduced forces by abolishing one hundred three (103) positions effective 11:59 p.m., October 31, 1979 without giving the employes affected thereby "not less than five (5) working days advance notice" nor did it issue a standard abolishment notice as required.


        2) Carrier shall now be required to compensate all employes affected an additional eight (8) hours pay at the rate of their assigned position which was abolished, or at their protected rate, whichever is greater, for November 1, 1979 and for each workday until they were returned to service.


        NOTE: Claimants and positions held are as follows:


        Aberdeen, Wa J. L. Werner Pos. 85300, Age.^.t

        Bellingham, Wa D. V. Finley 85400, Agent

        E. Morrow 85410, Barge Clk

        E. 1. Finley 85420, Cashier

        C. V. Lind 85440, Telegrapher

        Cedar Falls, Wa J. 0. Irvin " 82250, Agent

        Chehalis, We J. E. Marion 85050, Agent

        R. A. Rasmussen 83060, Operator

        W. P. Christensen 85070, Operator

        Cle El um, We J. V. Carter 82220, Operator


        Coeur d'Alene, Id I. M. Hauck " 83700, Agent-Qpr.


        rverett, We E. R. Emanuel pos. 84340, Agent'

        M. R. Nicholson 84360, Cashier

        S. R. Hawes 84370, Yard Clk

        Kent, We E. P. Orn 82800, Agent

        L. A. Miller 82320, operator

        G. G. Smith 32830, Operator

        M. L. Schonbachler Re1.7#1 - Agt-Opr.


              I

              Award :dumber 21,4;1 Page 2

              Docket Nunfoer 024216


Kittitas, 'wa A. L. Faling 82090, Operatcr
 Lynden, Wa I. E. ?ark 8$700, Agent
 lfalcen, Wa D. J. 0'Neal 80810, Opem for
 Xor ton, Wa :1. E. Brown 84;850, Agent
 Othello, Wa A. R. Freeman 81600, Agent
 A. &. Hake 81640, Operator
 D. R. Liberty 81650, Operator
 P. J. Krupa 81670, Operator
 M. E. Carroll Relief Opr.
 J. E. Barney 81720, Bill Clerk
 E. C. O'Brien 81690, Per. Frt.Insp.

 Pl_ , ,e=, Id R. F. Newcombe 80750, Agent

 Port Angeles, Wa J. A. Sanwald 85850, Agent
 I. J. -Lanify 85860, Cashier
 Portland, Or R. T. rI"m. erick 86500, Chief Clerk
 R. D. Baines 86530, Rate Clerk
 J. C. Smith 86540, General Clerk
 S. E. Walsh 86560, Relief C1'k
 St. Maries, ld C. N. Bea-, 80700, Agent
 R. W. Kelley 80720, Operator
 R. 3. Briscoe 80740, Operator
 S. E: Kohl 80760, Operator
 D. L. K'-I emier Relief Orr.
 Seattle, Wa R. H. Norman 89720, Asst. Cas.'-Ler
 C. R 'Woh?ers 89740, ch. Rev. clk.
 C. J. Fla=ery 89750, Rev. Clk-Gr.
 N. M. Spiegelberg 89790, -Rev. Clk-Gr. 3
 I. 3. Carletcn 89820, Rev. C?';-Gr. 3
 N. C. Mcintrye 89850, Keypunch 0o_-C1'_t
                  R. A . ^ e ttig 89860, i'eyn·,s:c:h Gpr-Cl

                  D. J. Leenders 89870, Cler--Xessenger

                  Z. J. ?:cl;eilIy 8;880, .'Asst. Cas'.^^!er

                  .. 0. Ea=ringtoa 89900, Sill & tzc:p C=k

                  G. 1^· Jurich 89890, Asst. Cashier

                  11 Wilccx 89940, Ke_.Y,~nchr-O1_:

                  T. W. Cook 89970, Rev. Cl'r.-Gr. 3

                  vacant 89980, Rev. Ci_k-Gr.


I
              Award Number 241151 Page 3

              Docket P;umber CL-24216


Seattle, Wa A. S. 3otten Pos. 89990, Rev. Clk-Gr B
 L. J. Fettig 86300, Ch. '-'d Clerk
 D. V. Grimes 86310, Asst. Ch.Yd C1?
 D D. Bangs 86320, Asst. Ch.Ya Cl'',
 C. Corsin 86330, Asst. Ch. Yd Clk
 a. D. Bollen 8631;0, Boardman
 L. A. Fet tig 86370, Weig_=as ter
 C. L. Thorno_ike Relief Cie=kNo. 1
 :!. R. Taylor Relief Clerk No. 2
 Spokane, Wa K. W. Johns 81110, Cashier
 I: Cala<<n 80190, Chief Clerk
 D. L. Brown 8113C, Car Clerk
 B. A. Ba=ker 81150, Yard Clerk
 S. bi, Kva_snicka 811 4O, 1?eigh =as ter
 %. D. Coleman Relief Clerk
 J. Ruscio 29780, Clerk
 Sumps, 'da D. A. Johnson 85500, Agent
 Tacoma, Wa E. S. Lindoff 80070, Tie Revisor
 B. J. KIP= 80060, A.S.Steno
 B. C. Riippi 80090, Steno
 J. E. i:jellesvik 80210, Steno Clerk
 Vacant 8023`0, Steno Clerk
 W. M. Rodside 80100, Jarstcr
                  J. A. Ray Relief Relay P?r.

                  R. G. Gideon 83050, Chief Clerk

                  R. E. Powell 83060, Cashier

                  J. M. Sedum 83070, Revising Clk

                  D. R. Snider 83090, 3alance Sheet

                  _. C. Stoc_nger 83100, Warehouse _.

P. W. Wood 86000, Chief Yd C1%'
 Y. D. Jones 86010, Asst.Ch.Yd c--,'_
 R. R. Mois 86020, Asst. Ch.Yd C'_'=
 G. L. S_.oo'leY- 860;0, 3card Clerk
 L. T_. Wallace 86180. Eoard Clerk
 F. L. -laler 86060, Checker
 J. R. Hoye 86080, Checker
 B. K. La=dins 86090, Checker
 L. K. Price 8610, Checker
 Tacoma, Wa D. L. Wri;ht Relief Cler_r '.'o. 1
 L. A. Uldric~son Relief Cle_k ::o. 2
 A. M. a--: -_s Relief Clerk No. 3
 D. ?. ':zztwr,_ght 80020, Divn.Car Dist.
 J. R. Ward 19020, CI er_. (Carl
 Seattle, Wa T. M. H°-z-"-,L-^= 11;$80, C:-.ie= Cler=
 B. ~. sstt:^. 1j130, Secretary
 ~po::ane, 'rim C. E. S t~ t;s 1 '020, Oh~_. C ____.
 D. J. Wa`ner =030, Sec-_et:=y· J

    ('.,'.ner a occup=_.ts o: ?esit:ons _ _ not lis tec, s,,-,e t,. be determined ~Olit Check of Ca=Ierls -_cor~s.J

                  Award .lumber 21+451 Page

                  Docket Number CL-24216


      3) Carrier shall be required to compensate all those employes

      who were displaced by employer whose positions were abolished

      an additional eight (8) hours pay at the rate of their

      assigned positions, or their protected rate whichever

      is greater, for November 1, 1979 and for each workday

      until they were returned to service.


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


Ii'T^i: 0" 30ARD: 7nis claim, protests Carrier `s abolishment on October 30,
 19'·9, of 103 balletined Positions without providing five worlcin~, da;;s' notice to the affected employees. The Organisation maintains that the fail=e to give such notice ~---ola--es Rule 12 of the Agreement. it seeks appropr -ate ccm'Je,2sa tio- for the incumbents of those positions as well as compensation for otiaer employees displaced by the incumbents as a result of Oarrier's abolition, of the positions in c-=_stiou. Carrier defend., on the F-ro.-,nAs that the abolition ocaxfd as a result of an emergency, thereby obvi- ng t::e need ..2~a), Carrier also raises certain procedural objections to the filing of the claim w_.ich are discussad _n detail below.

 On December 19, 1977 Carrier filed a petition for reorganization ander the 7ederal w.n~ruptcy Act, 11 J.S.C. 5205. Pursuant to that petition, J·.~dFe Tnomas R. Nc·:i11en of the United States District Co·,st - Easte appointed Stanley E 0. 1'illmr,n, and !a-cer Richard D. Ogilivie, as trustee. On April 23., 1979, Trustee Hill--.fln petitioned the Court to institute an ex-
 oerso over approximately eigiay percent of Carrier's lines. On June 1, 1979,
 the Court denied the '_'r us tee ° s embargo request.

 On August i0, 1979, t-"=e Trustee filed a second petition with the ' our-, see'.:1ng an em
 cargo of certain of Carrier's lines as of October 1, 1979. On Septezber 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 A_rpeals for the Seventh Circuit on October 2, ' 9'i'9.

 I:ccordin,Qlv, on October 26, 1979, Judge _:c=i11en issued Order l:o. 2?O~. t order directed Richard ?. 06il<<:e as Trustee of the Chicago, 1.:iiwaukee, Paul end ?aci='ic Railroad Company ~Ca_rrier) to embargo Carrier's f~-e,
                                                gt

0=orations en certain o_° its lines effective 12:01 ...L. ;C.~.~.), .;ova=bar 1, 1,79. _ne Order rends, i=- relevant part:

          "_ _

            accordance with Order ;o. 220A deter September 27, 1979

        this -o=rt's decision dated the same date, and the ,decision of

        the Co,irt Of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in In R_ Cnica o,

        "iiwau:·cee. PdUl and Pacific a='lroad Cc., _.,.,.


        -16'75, 79-!633, 7?-1693 ;7th C=_r. Oat. 2, 1979), ITT IS BY

        OTTE =7 that:

                  Award Number 24451 Page 5

                  Docket Number CL-24216


          "1. Richard B. Ogilvie, as Trustee of the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad Company is directed to embargo at 12:01 a.m. C.D.T., on November 1 1979 all of the Debtor's frei&:t operations on lines which 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 practical, the Trustee shall furlough all employees not required for the services and operations continued under paragraph 1 or for the administration of the estate, the protection of the Debtor's property or the finalization anproval and implementation of a plan of reorganization." (Emphasis supplied.)


On October 30, 1979, Mr. L. W. Harrington, Carrier's Vice PresidentManagement Services issued a memorandum addressed Force Reduction" in which he advised the recipients that as a result of the Court ordered embargo of certain Milwaukee Road lines their positions "may be affected by force reduction effective November 1, 1979."
Also on October 30, 1979, Mr. D. H. Burke, Acting Division Manager, issued a notice to "non-operating Craft Employes in the following unions..." The notice listed 103 bulletined positions and provided, in relevant part, that:
        "In view of the J. S. District Court directed embargo of certain Milwaukee Wad Lines, your position is abolished effective 11:59 p.m. Central Standard Time, October 31, 1979 under the Emergency Force Reduction provision of your union contract. 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 10, 1979 with Mr. A. F. Swanson, Assistant Division Shrager - Administration. It was denied by him on January 28, 1980. The claim was subsequently handled in the usual manner on the property, whereupon it was appeale
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 - :,educing Forces


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

                  Award Nutdoer 24451 Page 6

                  Docket Number CL-24216


          1. Rules, agreements or practices, however established,

          that recuire advance notice to employes before abolishing

          positions or making force reductions are hereby modified

          to eliminate any requirement for such notices under

          em=ergency conditions such as flood, snow storm, hurricane,

          tornado, earthcuake, fire or labor dispute other than as

          covered by subparagraph 2 below, provided that such condi

          tions result in suspension of a Carrier's operation in

          whole or in part. It is understood and agreed that such

          force reductions will be confined solely to those work

          locations directly affected by any suspension of opera

          tions. It is farther understood and agreed that notwith

          standing the foregoing, any employe 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 employe works any portion

          of the day he will be paid in accordance with existing

          rules.


        ;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 fernished to the local and general chairman. Such bulletin notice shall include the names of employes filling the positions abolished a

        (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 emioargo is not a "flood, snow storm, hurricane, tornado, earthc_-uaake, fire or labor dispute. Thus, the Organization asserts that 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 t:~e District Court. Also, the Organization
 contends that on October 26, 1;79, the date of Judge Mcl~:illen's final order, it
 advised Carrier's representatives that they would be in violation of the Agree-
 m=ent if Carrier did not give proper notice of the abolishments resulting from the embargo order.

        Addition.--p1<y, the 'rga-zatioz argues that Carrier's actions =n t:-.is

dispute violate Rule i2(c), second paragraph. 7rat clause requires that when
 all bulletined positions are abolis::ed, .,notice will be placed on all bulletin
 boards in the seniority dis-r-et affected and a copy of same will be furnished
 to 'he local and c' R~ 'l° 12(c) __ exzlicit and allows for .=· o
 exceptions. 7-us, tile ~rga_iaation contends that Carrier violated the rule when
 it failed to send Copies of the abolishm°_at notices to either its local or general
 C airman,
                  Award k1uCfo_r 24451 Page 7

                  Docket Number CL-24210


Accordingly, the Organization seeks additional. eight hours corm-pensation for the incumbents of the abolished positions for ;;o·recioer 1, 1979 and each work day thereafter until they were returned to service (Item 2 of claim). Additionally, the Organization the bulletined positions listed above be similarly compensated (Item 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 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 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 mean, in Carrier's view, that this =oard would be modifying the provisions of the existing Agreement. Clearly, the Board does not have the authority to add to, subtract or in any clay, modify those provisions. Accordingly, Carrier concludes that this Board is without jurisdiction to order any monetary damages in this case.

 Second, Carrier asserts that to the extent that it seeks to ascertain 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 employes who were displaced by employes whose positions were abolished (Emphasis supplied.) The Organization adds, under Item 3, that "the employes...displaced by employes whose positions were abolished (are) to be determined by joint check of payroll and other necessary records."

 Carrier further notes that in Item 2 of the claim two of the 1C3 individuals whose positions were abolished are not named. Rather, they are identified as follows:

              Seattle, Sda. Vacant 39900 Rev. CL,.-Gr. B

              Tacoma, Wa. Vacant 80230 Steno Clerk


          Where occupants of positions are not listed, same to be determined by joint check of Carrier's r


Carrier maintains that Item 3 of the claim is invalid in that it seeks compensation for individuals who are both unnamed and u 35 o-' the Agreement requires that "all claims or grie·,ra=ces must be presented in w or on behalf of the employer involved. Thus, according to Carrier, where the claim is presented, as here, on behalf of univnown and unnamed individuals, it must be dismissed.

 In addition, Carrier argues that absolutely no schedule rule and/or a2a-eement between the parties provide for a join+. check of Carrier's records to determine the names of individuals allegedly aggrieved. Thus, it is Carrier's position that to th 3 require such a chsc'c
                  Award Number 24451 Page g

                  Docket '-;umber CL-21:216


to 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 i:d_i11en on October 26, 1979 clearly constitutes an emergency of the trope contempla t-e- by Rule 12 (a )l . Carrier notes that the 1 ist of emergencies in that r labor 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. Lr 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 provisions of .Rule 12(a)1. Furthermore, _airier notes that the Interstate Commerce Commission has specifically
'-pus, 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 oblicated to give five working days' notice when it abolished 103
 piticns as a result of the embargo order. "inerefore, Carrier asks that the
 os claim be denied on its merits as well as on procedural grounds.

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

 '1 'he relevant facts of this case are identical with those in Axazd No. 2U46 decided herewith. I'ne rationale for our decision is set forth in great detail in that case. There we decided that as to Carrier's procedural objections, a mon concluded that to '-..he extent Items (2) and (3) of the claim referred to unnamed or unidentifed individuals, they were invalid. Here, the two un --ndividuals listed in Item (2) are readily identifiable through their bulletined position numbers. 103 employees '-referred to in item, (2) of the claim are prorer Claimants, wile Item (3) of the claim is deemed in-
 ·,~alid.

        As to the merits, we concluded in Award No. 244-46 that under

the facts of that ;zee, as here, the Court ordered embargo on October 2e, i?7?
 defined R_ ..
 .id :-ot cons tit. . an emergency as d__~ne, b·, ,ae 12 0_ the Ar.eement. F :.rtherniorC, we found teat each of t_^.e 'Mai^2nts had received '-one day's ad __ ..___ =b~1is~=e:a of his o= her position.

        ~.cccrdin-,·:. for t--_e rce.sons set '-fort:, above and __ ax~i No. 2446

                                        J,iAV r

,c w_li awar~ each of the iIof the rosit_ors !isW-ed n 1tex (2) of the
 cl_ain eiF:t hours' _-, at ~:Ie rate of his or-her assigned position or protected
 r a t, ;._.ic_:e·; er is -ea+pr, __°or November 1 , 1,370 and _'or ea& day until to
 she ret._n^ CPS. L~o '. F f`ur .7s·:/ _`l)o ws _t-._, /III and

 P_, . _ , ice ua ax_ -. c s .. .,(2, Cf the claim re ~,st~__ to 'he·`eztent ;.ndddicat°_d~i-:: the of the cl=._._
                  Award _:a::oer 24451 Fage 9

                  Doc:;et .:°-oer ;;L-2:216


- d 2:7Z: : a _"hir n~Vvis:GS _o, of t~,e ._"z. .,.. ~_oa_d, _d, _=o^ tw.._ whole 'r-,2=1
 and all the evi 4e n^_·e, finds a-:d holds:

        gnat the parties ·a- ived oral _:e:~riag;


That the Carrier and the :gym-oyes in·rolved in this dispute are respectively Carrier ^_=.d Employes within the meaning of the Railway :a Actj as approved June 21, 1934;

 That this Division of the .4dj ~s H eat 3oard has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and

        That the Aizreement tans violated.


                      A W A R D


        Claim sus tailed in accordance with the On-i-ion,


                      :;ATIOUAL RAILR~AO A^nT''SL:T_ °:A:;D

                      By Order of 1'hird D-_.·isiou


Acting E%ecutive Secreta:f
 ~iational Railroad Adust^..u,. 3oard

 Rosemarie Brasch - Administrative Assist-ant

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