S-CiT. B~=`?·C G'-AnJUJI:,_~_y0~60j_


    _,S ) Brotherhood of 2a:ilway, .^.i ~ I i..- ,. :d S tea^.- C~' ,

Yi·F:i'u: ·.,.' ~.: iD :.Cr::S
 , 1_
 TO ) Freight Handlers, Express ant Static-,
 ~:c~ _o;aes
 D:.SPUin ) an' d
 New York Central Railroad company
 QUESTIONS
 AT ISSUE: (1) Did Carrier violate the terra and con,-ns
 of the February 7, 1905 National Str.~ilization
 Agreement omen it denied to iW. Jose ;h J. 2~rray,
                              . ,

              Chief Cleric, District F___ eLgt :. Ciaim Office,

              Boston, Massachusetts, a 1u-:n sum sapa=..tion

              allowance in lieu of transerrin_ to 3Lffalo,

              New York, and°r Article V of the ~gree::.nt?


          (2) Does Mr. Murray possess the 15 or r,-,ore years or -

          employment relationship, a.. that tern is defined,

          necessary to qualify him for a separation. allow

          ance?


              (3) Shall Carrier now be required to nay to ~. u:urray the lump sura separation allowance afforded' under Article V of the Agreem_nt?


OPINION The parties are in accord that the Claimant herein is
 OF BOA.ZD: a protected employee within the purview, of A-c-icia 1.
 Section 1, of the 1'eSruary 7, 1965 National Agree.-.ant.
 '.he facts indicate that the Claimant tins originally hired o; .abru
 ary 2, 1948, as a clerk in the office of the General 7 ._anager, a fully
 excepted position. He worked there continuously until A'-gust .31,
 1954, when he was terminated due to a reduction in force.

 On May 3, 1955, he was hired by the Carrier as as investigator. -Subsequently, on December 20, 1957, he was promoted to Chief Clerk and remained in that position until its abolish-.ant on December 31, 19066, in accordance with an implementing agreement executed by the parties.

          In the instant claim, the question presented is whether

or not the Claimant is entitled to severance pay conditioned on the _
 employment relationship? Necessarily, the crucial point in contro
 versy is whether the Claimant had acquired the "15 or more years of
 employment relationship with the carrier," as contemplated by Article
 v of the February 7, 1965 National Agreement.

 Unquestionably, neither the context of the National -",reement nor the euestions and answers included in the interpretations are
                _ ~ _ .:C~s~:;o :r·::'.-2;,-


',CtCd to the instant 1SSUC. 1'~^~3t is ..^ u. E':·' 1Cy.::C nt W i::":1GnU: _:u? yn
 ~'
 this reCard, Question '.,,To. 5 under Article 1, Sec ti. on i, .`=aces 4,. fol-

      lows Q. "is the terra 'em~loymant relationship' synonymous with seniority?"


      A. 'The term 'employment rclat>_onsh7.p' used in this Section

      should not be confused with the terra Silica it

      was used in the agreement to provide prccection to en:nloyees

      who had at least a 2-year e:nploy::ent relationship with a

      carrier on October 1, 1964, but w::o may not have had at

      least 2 years' seniority."


If tae were to apply this analogy to the Fifteen year employee, then merely indicating the existence of an em?lover-e-.ployee relationship, regardless of any coverage under a collective bargaining agree:.:cnt, would such suffice for the purpose of deter.-:ining to cm2. loy;:e relationship? Furthermore, is there any significance to the fact chat no:ri:ere within Article V is the word seniority mentioned?

 Several other aspects should be indicated. .he Claimant had received three weeks vacation under the national Vacation Agrecceat, as well as having the machine listings show ::is service as of February 2, 1948, h15 Original hire date. On the other hand, there is a subdued innuendo of.record tampering, 2s well as strong reliance by the Carrier on the fact that the positions, from 1948 through 1954, were fully excepted from coverage under the Or.-anizatien's contract.

 672 have pondered this protrlem very carefully and lave reached the conclusion that the use of the phrase, "employ ;.ant .~_ationship," requires that 1t be given 2 meaning different fro-1 the t2r.'-: "sE niOr t ity.t Seniority, normally, flows from the agreenent of the parties as evidenced by the collective bargaining contract. Conversely, the emnloyment relationship arises o;h~n an employee is first hired - w=et'.^.er in a bargaining unit or excepted position. Pence, the employment relationship need not be coincidental with seniority.

                  Award


      .'answer to Questions 1, 2 and 3 is in the affirmative.


              1:urray If. Rohman

              Neutral Member


Dated: Washington, D.C.
 :'arch 7, 1969