"Claim on behalf of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen on the St. Lawrence & Atlantic Railroad Company:

Claim to require amendment of the current Signalmen's Agreement to provide for compensation and benefits in accordance with the terms of the agreement between Carrier and the United Transportation Union dated June 11, 1994, account Carrier violated the current Signalmen's Agreement, particularly Article IV of the July 30, 1993 agreement, when it denied the Brotherhood's request to amend the Agreement through application of Article IV. General Chairman's File No. 94-46rSLA. BRS File Case No. 9622-StL&A."

In the event that an agreement is reached with another Union which contains provisions for bonus payments, wage increases, lump sum payments, Cost-of-Living Adjustments or other benefits in excess of those provided by this Agreement, the St. Lawrence & Atlantic will, upon request from the General Chairman signatory to this Agreement, apply such wage, rule and/or benefit provisions to the employees covered by this agreement provided, however, that any offsetting considerations (or equivalent offsetting considerations if appropriate) agreed to by such other Union in return for the wage and/or benefit provisions, will likewise be applied to the employees covered by this Agreement."

In an Agreement dated July 5, 1993, the parties agreed towage increases of $.40 per hour effective May 19, 1993 and May 19, 1994 and $.50 per hour effective May 19, 1995.

Negotiations between the UTU and the Carrier resulted in an Agreement dated June 11,1994, whereby the UTU agreed that the Carrier's trains would operate without Brakemen, thereby reducing the crew from three to two (an Engineer and a Conductor). In exchange for the reduced crew level, the Carrier "bought out" the Brakemen's position. According to the Carrier:

". . . Under the current UTU contract, it was agreed that the UTU would relinquish all rights to the third crew members position. The eight dollar per day disparity is payment for this position."

Initially, the claim encompassed increases in health and welfare benefits given to the UTU employees which apparently have been passed on to the Signalmen and are not in dispute before this Board. The remaining dispute is the Signalmen's claim for wage increases.

The Signalmen invoked the "me too" provisions of Article IV to increase the hourly pay of the covered Signalmen. That position has merit.

The Carrier argues that the Signalmen and UTU Agreements are not comparable in the crew consist area in that only the UTU Agreement provided for minimum manning. According to the Carrier, Article IV of the Signalmen's Agreement does not apply. We disagree. The distinction pointed out by the Carrier does not limit the operation of the "me too" provisions of Article IV of the Signalmen's Agreement.

As negotiated, Article IV is a quite broad "me too" provision. The Carrier broadly obligated itself with respect to "bonus payments, wage increases, lump sum payments, Cost-of-Living Adjustments or other benefits in excess of those provided by this Agreement" to "apply such wage, rule and/or benefit provisions to the employees covered by this agreement". No matter how one categorizes the additional compensation given to the UTU employees for the buy out of the Brakemen's position, because the Carrier agreed in Article IV of the Signalmen's Agreement that it would "apply such wage, rule and/or benefit provisions to the employees covered by this agreement", the additional remuneration given to the UTU employees amounted to "bonus payments, wage increases, lump sum payments, Cost-of-Living Adjustments or other benefits" which, under Article IV of the Signalmen's Agreement, must be passed on to the Signalmen.

The Carrier points to the final language in Article IV ["provided, however, that any offsetting considerations (or equivalent offsetting considerations if appropriate) agreed to by such other Union in return for the wage and/or benefit provisions, will likewise be applied to the employees covered by this Agreement"] as supportive of its position. That language does not change the Carrier's obligations to pass on increases to the Signalmen which were given to the UTU employees. The UTU agreed to reduce the crew level. That reduction is arguably an "offsetting consideration". How that "will likewise be applied" to the Signalmen, if at all, is mere speculation at this time and we express no opinion on that question. All we are faced with at this time is that the Carrier granted increased remuneration to the UTU employees. Article 1V obligated it to do the same for the Signalmen.