' Award No. 25
Case No. CL-23-E
c SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTIENT N0. 605
PARTIES ) Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks,
TO ) Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employees
DISPUTE ) and
New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Company
QUESTIONS
AT ISSUE: (1) Did the Carrier violate the provisions of the
February 7, 1965 Agreement when, on July 1, 1965
it refused to thereafter corapennate Mr. E.
Moriarty, Chief Clerk, seniority date 1-19-19,
in accordance with the provisions of Article IV?
(2) Shall Carrier now be required to restore Mr.
Moriarty to a fully protected status and compensate him in accordance with the provisions
of Article IV, Section 1, for $11 wage loss
suffered commencing July 1, 1965 and each day
thereafter?
OPINION
OF BOARD: The facts which gave rise to the instant dispute are as
follows:
On May 1, 1965, Claimant Moriarity was displaced from his
position of Chief Clerk. Thereafter, the Claimant bumped a junior employee
with a decrease in rate of .876 cents per day, or $4.38 per week.
The February 7, 1965 National Agreement, required approval
of the Court before it could become effective on this property as the
Carrier was under the supervision of Trustees. On August 19, 1965, the
parties entered into a Letter \grcement supplementing a Petition to the
Court, requcstinT such approval in order to permit the Carrier to comply
with the National Agreement. Thereafter, on September 14, 1965, the
Court authorized the Trustees to comply with the National Agreement.
In summary, the Claimant was displaced to a lower rated
position on May 1, 1065. The fchruary 7, 1965 National Agreement was not
effective on this property until July 1, 1965, pursuant to the Letter
Agrccmmt of August 19, 1965 and the Court Order of Septem!>er 14, 1965.
However, the Letter \g;rcement also included the following: paragraph which
is the genesis of this dispute:
"1. :1 y· non-compliance with the Agreement by the Trustees
prior to July 1, 1965 is waived and deemed released.'
'Thus, the issue
pose('.
is whether the OrF~a::izaCion waived
it. right to pro.:es~s iny Wai;n: resulting; from changes which omurred prior
.',war, , . ' ,
case C!'-23-L,
to July 1, 1965. We do not believe that such waiver was contemplated
by the parties. In our view, the intent of item 2 of the :\u·m,st
11),
1965 Letter Agreement was not designed to destroy any claim which arose
prior to July 1, 1965. Rather, we believe they only agreed to waive
any retroactive monetary damages which may have accrued prior thereto.
Hence, the claim is valid.
Avnrd
The answer to Questions 1 and 2 is in the affirmative.
J
Murr M. Ro man
Ne ral Member
Dated: Washington, D. C.
January 24, 1969
.:ir'.9·3 ,l-9
c~
F'
c ~ ,-
a .3
c~ G.
~,·rs Lz-~r
14