The Third Division of the Adjustment Board upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that:
The carrier or carriers and the employee or employees involved in this dispute are respective carrier and employee within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934.
This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.
This dispute centers upon the interpretation and application of certain provisions of an employee protective Agreement between AMTRAK and TCU in connection with the conversion of Northeast segments to CETCICTC. Under the terms of Article I of that April 16, 1987 Agreement, Carrier was obligated to offer $25,000 separation allowances to some nine employees in connection with the Phase 11 segment implementation, i.e., Springfield, Massachusetts, to, but not including, New Haven. Connecticut. At all time pertinent to this case, Claimant was the least senior employee holding an extra Block Operator position on the Meriden, Connecticut, Guaranteed Extra Board. Seniority District #4, protecting Block Operator positions in towers at Springfield. Hartford, Berlin and New Haven.
Under date of April 12, 1991, the Carrier served notice upon the Organization. as follows:
The operative terms referenced in that letter were defined by the Parties in Side Letter No. 4 to the April 16, 1987 CETC Agreement. Form I Award No. 317-10
By letters dated April 15, 1991, Carrier offered the Article I separation allowance of $25,000 to Claimant and some eight other employees in the Phase H area. Apparently four of those employees accepted the separation allowances, of which they were notified on May 14, 1991. Following administrative delays they received the separation payments on or about May 30, 1991 and were terminated from employment and seniority in accordance with Article IX of the CETC Implementation Agreement of April 16, 1987. With five employees not accepting the separation allowances, this left $125,000 in allocated monies to be handled through reserve status offers and/or disposition in accordance with Side Letter No. 7 of the CETC Agreement.
Carrier did not make any offer of reserve status on grounds that initial and full and complete implementation had been effected simultaneously on May 15, 1991. Following discussions with the TCU leadership, however, AMTRAK agreed to offer a modified version of reserve status to three of the remaining Block Operators. (n addition to voluntary furlough or displacement of a junior Operator or Clerk, these senior employees received an offer of "modified" reserve status, with an additional condition that recall during reserve periods could be to either Block Operator or clerical positions. Claimant and the one other employee on the Meriden, Connecticut, GREB were not offered either "regular" or "modified" reserve status, on grounds that them were not subject to furlough since they remained in their extra positions to cover Block Operator duties at New Haven Tower, which remained in operation after the Springfield New Haven segment implementation was completed with the elimination of the Springfield, Massachusetts, tower. In that connection, instead of the modified reserve status offers received by the other three Block Operators, Claimant and David Coyne received letters on July 13, 1991 advising, in pertinent part:
In the meantime, Springfield Tower Interlocking had been cut over to CETC/CTC on May 15,1991 and Claimant, who resided in Springfield, Massachusetts, and D. Coyne, who resided in Newington, Connecticut, remained on the Meriden. Connecticut, GREB, protecting the Block Operator positions at New Haven Tower until the next segment implementation was full and complete between New Haven and Cranston. The record indicates that, although always subject to cover New Haven off the Meriden. GREB, Claimant had, for the most part, worked in the Springfield Tower for the first five years of his employment with Carrier. However, with the elimination of the Hartford Tower in June 1990, he was displaced from Springfield by senior Operator George Ross, one of the three employees who subsequently was offered and accepted a "modified" reserve status in June 1991.
Once Springfield Tower was eliminated and the three other Block Operators accepted the modified reserve status, Claimant and D. Coyne remained on the 'Meriden. Connecticut, GREB protecting positions at New Haven Tower. It is not disputed that Claimant, who commuted from Springfield to New Haven, received the travel allowance provided under Rule 4-C-I (c) from headquarters to his work location.
Careful analysis of the undisputed facts and clear and unambiguous contract language of the CETC Agreement persuades us that this claim must be denied for lack of contractual support and/or mootness. Even if, argu, endo, Claimant had been entitled to, received and accepted a modified reserve status offer, he suffered no contractually recognizable monetary loss. Under the terms of either the "regular" Article II or the modified reserve status, Carrier could have utilized Claimant to cover the New Haven Block Operator positions for a wage of $480 per week. Instead, Carrier invoked its rights under Article VA and Claimant earned at least the guaranteed rate of $530.80 per week off the Meriden, Connecticut, GREG. Nor is there any contractual underpinning for the claim for "travel money and deadheading" from Springfield to New Haven, over and above the Rule 4-C-1 (c) travel allowance which he received for travel from his headquarter's point to his work location. Form 1 .ward No. 317-10