H.C.C.

 Tote the enclosed copies of Awards Nos. 30 through 40 of S.B,A. No. 605 in disputes involving the Clerks.

 Award No. 32 could adversely affect our Case No. 1,9U-7-B involving crossing catchmen on the D, & 1-I. As yon will recall, they were taken off the protected list by the carrier when they refused to take temporary work (or m the carrier alleges) as trackman.

 Award No, 33 should be helpful in our Cases Nos. lid-2-Ii and 241-3-L involving the Boston Terminal. The carrier failed to recall the claimants to service July 1, 1965,

 Although .lward No. 35 was decided against the Clerks, it does give support to the language of Article III, Section 1: "provide a force adequate to meet the Carrier's requirements."

 In my opinion, the over-all tone of these awards is not encouraging.

CC: Mr. J, J. Berta
 March 14, 1969

 C:. -.. De::nis
 ... C. Grotty
 ... R. Lowry
 C. J. Chamberlain
 Ft. W. Smith

 Dear Sirs and Brothers:

 SUBJECT: Awards Nos.: 30 through 40
 - Disputes Committee
 February 7, 1965 Agreement
 (Clerks Cases)

 We met with Referee Rohman on March 7, 1969 to receive his decisions in a number of the clerks cases which had previously been heard by him.

 I am enclosing herewith a copy of Awards Nos. 30 through 40, which were presented by Mr. Rohman at that time, and, of course, will be binding on all parties.

 We believe that Award Nos. 31 and 36 are particularly damaging to us, and will file dissents to those awards. The carrier representatives and Mr. Rohman were so advised, and copies will be furnished you when they are completed. The carriers will file a separate opinion with respect to Award No. 37, and a copy of that will be furnished to you within the next few days.

 We agreed that Mr. Rohman will handle another docket of 20 clerks cases, hearings on which will begin in Washington on April 2, 1969. You will be advised as hearings on these disputes progress.

 Enclosures

 Fraternally yours,, ~ 0

 .A
 ~·o~,6W.a.rr
 ~.
 Chai.:inaa ~
 Five Coope~r'ating ,~Railway
 Labor Organizations
                                      3 0

                                      ._..~:d :.o. _

                                      Case io. CL-25-E


          SPECIAL E0,=.Rn 07 AD,TUS'i"43_;T i ;0. 6J5


PARTIES ) Brotherhood of Re.ilcaay, r'.ir line and Staa-.shi.p Clerks,
 TO ) Freight Handlers, E_:;prass c- d Station E_:::lcyec.s
 DISPUTE and
 Erie Lackawanna Railroad Company
 QUESiIO\S
 AT ISSUE: (1) Zs protected employe M. J. i:cLa::,hlin entitled to
 compensatory benefits c. hen

              (a) reduced to a furloL:.-lied status


                  (b) required to accept a position rated lower than his protected rate due to a work restriction imposed on him by the Carrier's Chief Surgeon?


              (2) Is protected employ-- 2f. J. i.chaughlin, who ::olds seniority only on Roster 'B', required to accept or make application for a Roster `A' position in order to protect his protected status 2nd/or co.-..;pensatory benefits when he is unable to e:cercise his seniority to or seta=e a position on Roster 'B' because of the work restriction imposed on him by the Carrier's Chief Surgeon?


              (3) If protected employe .d. J. iZr_Lau,,hiin, a Roster °$' employe, having no rights on Roster 'A', elects not to accept a Roster `?.' position or work in that category offered to hi-: by the Carrier, does he retain his protected status and is he entitled to compensatory benefits?


          (4) Car. the Carrier hold the rate of a Roster

          position against protected employe :·?. J. ?:cLau;;hlin

          in computing his compensatory benefits when: such

          position is oce he is unable to seta=a because of

          the work restriction imposed on him by the Carrier's

          Chief Surgeon?


OPINION
 OF BOARD: As a result of a back injury sustained by the Clai-.ant
 while working, plus a kidney infection. which he suSsequeatly
 _ developed, the Carrier's Chief Surgeon rest_icte3 iii, fro-.
 performing heavy lifting in his normal position as a laborer.
 The basic question posed herein, is whet'.:er the Cla_.^ant is
 in a furlou,~hcd status or .'.alls within the Context of Article T-`.', section
 5. The pertinent portion of the latter section provides as follows:

            11A protected employee shall not be entitled to the benefits of this Article during any period in which he fails to work due to disability . . ."

                                  L.U::._d ..0. _%u_


                                  W :$~.· ~\~. Vr~.~.Wr


Thus, it is the Carrier1s position that the Claimant, "cannot perform the c;orc his seniority would entitle him, to bocause of his physical disability." Under the circumstances prevalent herein, the Organization's position cannot be sustained.

                  ' Ao>ard


The questions posed by the Organization are confusing and contradictory. The ansc:cr herein, nevertheless, is intended to deny the claim in all respects.
                          i/

            f'~ !~L ~!.Gt=i~` ; ~- GIGO l . `___~


                    rfar5ay i·I. Rohman

                    Neutral henioer


Dated: Washington, D. C.
 March 7, 1969