COOPERATING RAILWAY LABOR ORLCAIN,a:.ZATIONS
G. E. Leighty · Chairman John J. McNamara . Treasurer
 Railway Labor Building · Suite 804 Fifth Floor, VFW Building
 400 First Street, N.W. · Washington, D. C. 20001 200 Maryland Ave., N.E. · Washington, D. C. 20002
 Code 202 RE 7-1541 Code 202 547-7540

Mr. C. L. D nnis
 Mr. H. C. C otty
 Mr. A. R. L wry
 Mr. C. J. C amberlain
 Mr. R. W. S 'th

Dear Sire and Brothers:

 I am enclosing herewith our Dissent to Award No. 31 (Case No. CL-26E) of Special Board of Adjustment No. 605 established by the February 7, 1965 Agreement which was signed by Referee Rohman on March 11, 1969. We consider the issue involved so important that a Dissent was necessary. We have since decided that we would not Dissent to Award No. 36.

 I am also enclosing herewith the opinion of the Carrier members in connection with Award No. 37 (Case No. CL-45-W) of this same Board which was signed on the same date.
                        Ch I' - I' t

                        Five Coratio Railway Labor Organizations

Enclosures cc: L. P. 5ehoene
                      .~.r

          WASHINGTON, D. C. - - DfkRCL! 11, 1969


Dr. Murray M. Rolunan,
 Professor of Industrial Relations,
 School of Business,
 Texas Christian University,
 Port North, Texas 76129
 Dear Doctor Rolunan
 You were.informed at the time Award No. 37 (Case No. CL-45-IV) of Special Board of Adjustment No. 605 was signed by you on March 7, 1969, that the Carrier Members of the Special Board would file a separate opinion thereto. The Carrier Members' opinion is attached.

                        Very truly yours, ,

        i


                        _ G` .


encl.

 Copy to -

          Messrs.

          G. E. Leighty

          C. L. Dennis


                    T. A. Tracy

                                    .... .... c. .,G . ___'' I


                                    E.u.:.'v .O. ~; :u-::


          ~~i'.Cl:__i~::TSti G_-~-·~.~.'A __1_._..-._


PAPTIES ) Brotherhood of Railway, t.irline .,.... Stcc.-a_:ip Ci_::a,
 1'l0 ) Freight Sax:dlers, ia:prcss and St~.=icn L·;p'.oyc_..
 DISPUTE ) and
 St. Louis-San Francisco :;=,ilWm:y Co:::?n:ny

 QUESTIONS
 AT ISSUE: (1)Did the Carrier violate the T,rov:_sion- of the
 February 7, 1965 :,~ree:~:rt, pcrtic.,lar-~y Article
                        ,

              II, Sectio n 1 and Article IV, Sct.o n 2 t::~::eof

              when it terminated tile protective __u_us o=

              extra boats e:-,ployes account railure~;:o respcnd to calls for extra


              Shall tale Carrier now b:. required t0 return Employes F. 21. 9ndresas, E. 0. och, F?, i-.. _'iorris and J. T. Johnson to the status of protected employes and pay them for ail losses sustained

                            ,

              due to the Carrier9s arbitrary action in r_,-aving them from their prOtc^.Cted StatL:S inCludi ng`1a11 subsequent wage increases from the respective dates they were rexoved from the protective provisions of the Agree:r..^.n t?


OPINIOV
 OF BOARD: '?'he Organization filed the instant claims on ba"T-:FIf of the
 Claimants contending that the Carrier had i:mro?eriy
 mated their protected status. T.:e determination thereof
 depends on rorhether the claimants are considered extra ee.
 ployees or furloughed employees.

 In the event they, are dser=d to be extra e-?loyees, rhea they could lose their protected status by failure to obtain a position available t0 them 1n t%e exercise of Seniority :'°::t3 i:': accorda--ce with existing rules or agreet_nts, other then a temporary posizion. See Questions and Ans·.r2rs :;o. 3 and 4, under the inter pre_aticn to ..~ticle II, Section 1. However, a furloughed employee is required to respond to a call for extra work in order to preserve his protected status.

      - In this regard, the Carrier argues thct extra boards a__

not maintained for Organization employees. F:o:aever, ..-,pioyes` Ex::ioit
 4 (a), a letter signed by the Division Super intendant is addressed to
 :fx. E. 0. koch, Extra Clark-Pensacola, one of t'I'Le heroin;
        E ` 4 (c), addressed to the General C' w ..

Employes' xhibi;. :.a__c.an ~ ,. si_.:ed
 by L. J. King, also refers to extra clerk and junior e:.:tra clerk. It
 is, 'therefore, our considered opinion that the documentation is suffi
 cient to indicate that these Claimants are extra employees.
                                d-:are So. _37

                                Cz:c :,.. COOK


          ~_~J


Answer to questions 1 and 2 is _.. to Gf=ir::.=.nive.

                    ~ u

                            -`G`v~

            ;~:urr~.y M. :zor.:azn Aeurrzl cw..:oer


                                    ,,


                                ~t~' ,~

                                  ~~,


Dated: Washington, D. C.
      I`a:ch 7, 1969

                              ,

AV'Ahl) 10. 37

crass no. c;,-ns-Ie


                SGPARAT I: OPINION- OF TIC: CARRIERS


V7ien the proposed award of the neutral ma;:bcr in this ease was submitted to the parties for consideration, the Carrier Dlembcrs were under the impression from reading the first two paragra;)'.a of the opinion that the neutral member was adopting certain principles with respect to loss of protection of extra men in contrast with furloughed men. D1ore specifically, it was thought that the neutral member was implying that extra men would lose their protective status under Article 11, Section 1 only if they failed to obtain a regular assignment, other than a temporary assignment, available to them in the exercise of their seniority and not for failure to respond to calls for extra work; whereas a furloughed employee was required to respond to calls for extra work in order to preserve his protective status.

 However, during the discussion of the proposed award, the neutral member made it clear that he was not ruling on the obligations of extra men as against the obligations of furloughed men with respect to accepting calls for extra work. He stated that lie was simply determining whether the individuals involved were extra employees or furloughed employees in response to tire questions raised in the case - that the language of the opinion should not he considered as railing on the obligations of extra employees with respect to accepting calls. In view of these clarifying statements, the carriers do not take exception to the first two paragraphs of the opinion.

 However, the Carrier Members do take exception to the apparent finding that the claimants are extra employees and not furloughed employees. The claimants were in fact furloughed employees available for and performing extra work. The mere fact that they were referred to as "extra clerks" does not mean'that they were not "furloughed" employees. Referring to furloughed employees who are available for and perform extra work as "extra employees" where extra boards are not maintained is a common practice in the industry.

                              ~r,~ , ~- D~


March 11, 1969