C C ® P`RA'f'S NC RZAi LWAY
G. E. Leighty · Chairman
 Railway Labor Building · Suite 804
 400 First Street, N.W. · Washington, D. C. 20001
 Code 202 RE 7-1541

 Mr. C. L. Dennis
 Mr. H. C. Crotty
 Mr. A. R. Lowry
 Mr. C. J. Chamberlain
 Mr. R. W. Smith

 Dear Sirs and Brothers:

 John J. MeNamara - Treasurer
 Fifth Floor, VFW 2uild:ng
 200 Maryland Ave., N.E. · Washington, D. C. 20002
 Code 202 547-7540

 Apri 1 23, 1969

 SUBJECT: Awards Nos. 49 and 50
 Disputes Committee
 February 7, 1965 Agreement
 (Signalmen Cases)

 For your information and records I am enclosing herewith a copy of Awards Nos. 49 and 50, Signalmen Cases, which were agreed upon by the Disputes

 Committee without the assistance of a referee.




Five Cooperating Railway rganiza ons

 Enclosures

                                      Case \o. SG-1 I


          SPECIAL BOARD OF AIJJUSTU?NT NO. 605


PARTIES ) The Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway
 TO ) and
 DISPUTE ) Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen

 QUESTION
          AT ISSUE: In transferring protected employees under the provisions of an implementing agreement as provided in Article III of Mediation Agreement, Case No. e1-7128, dated February 7, 1965, do such employees:


          (1) transfer to the new seniority district with all rights, including seniority rights held on the district from which transferred, dovetailing same with seniority dates of employees on the district to which transferred and do such transferred employees relinquish their seniority rights on the district from which transferred;


          or do such employees:,


          (2) retain their seniority rights on the district from' which transferred and establish new seniority dates in the district to which transferred in accordance with seniority provisions in the General Rules Agreement even though this will mean that these protected employees will be placed on the seniority roster with a seniority date later than that of non-protected employees which will make the protected employees subject to being cut off in force reduction ahead of the non-protected employees?


OPINION
          OF BOARD: Due to the length of time elapsed since these men were needed in California and Oklahoma in April 1965 and the present day, the carrier having in the meantime made other arrangements for procurement of employes at these points, the_ specific need is no longer present.


                          Award


          Claim dismissed.


        Carrier Members Employee Members


                                            ~71~


                                J , ~.


Washington, D. C. April 22, 1969