PARTIES ) Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks,
 TO ) Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employees
 DISPUTE ) and
 Missouri Pacific Railroad Company
 QUESTIONS
 AT ISSUE: (1) Did the Carrier's action violate Article VI, Sections
 1 and 4 of the February 7, 1965 A~,reemant, when it
 discontinued, effective February 7, 1965, the pcymnt
 of displacemxnt allowances, Supplem--ntal Unemployment
 benefits, furlough allowances, hospital dues, Travelers
 Group Life Insurance and dependent©' hospital, medical
 and surgical insurance, ms provided in Article II of
 the April 17, 1963 A,reevz:nt, to those employes who
 were being accorded the benefits provided in Article
 II of the April 17, 1963 Agreement?

OPINION
 OF BOARD: Prior to the February 7, 1965 National Agreement, the
 parties herein had executed a General Job Protection Agree
 ment on April 17, 1963. .Subsequently, on April 1, 1965,
 the Organization advised the Carrier that it was not
 exercising the option contained in Article VI, Section 1,
 of the National Agreem`nt, wherein it could preserve the April 17, 1963
 Job Protection Agreement. However, at the same ties, the Organization
 indicated that, "(T)he benefits now being paid under the terms of the
 April 17, 1963 Agreement must continue for the remainder of the pro
 tective period. . ."

 The pertinent portion applicable herein of Article VI, Section 1, of the National Agreement states, that a job protection agreement may be preserved by notifying the Carrier within sixty days and "in that event this agreement shall not apply on that carrier to employees represented by such representatives."

 At this juncture, it is unassailable that the Organization had an option either to continue the April 17, 1963 Job Protection Agreement, or elect not to preserve such Agreement upon the execution of the National Agreement. Prior to the expiration of the sixty day provision contained in Section 1 of Article VI, the Orgmnization notified the Carrier of its election not to preserve the 1963 Agreement.

However, the issue presented herein is whether once having made such an election could it still retain the benefits previously paid under the 1963 Agreement, for the remainder of the protective period? It is significant, in our view, that if the Organization had elected to retain the 1963 Agreement then the benefits under the National Agreement would not have applied. This part is clear, terse and unambiguous. In effect, the Organization is seeking the best of two worlds -to retain the benefits of the 1963 Agreement as well as those flowing from the National Agreement. Hence, it is our considered judgment that only the provisions of the National Agreement are now applicable herein.

                    Award


          The answer to Questions 1 and 2 is in the negative.


                        i


                          r_ i


Murray A. Rolmmna

Neutral Member


            Dated: Washington, D. C.

            January 24, 1969


~.~i Gt r'"
          c:1

    ~?

        ~f i


      ('d~.