..

P3dard RO. .u

Case t;o. SG-S-.°,

s SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUS=ENT NO. 605
i
PARTIES ) Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen
TO ) and
DISPUTE ) Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company
QUES ION
AT ISSUE: Must Carrier now pay to Mr. David F. Lee -- a
"protected employee" who was not recalled to
service until August 9, 1965 -- an amount of
j money equal to that which he would have earned
as a Signal Maintainer, ii he had been properly
recalled on riarch 1, 1965, and retained in
service continuously thereafter?
OPINION
OF BOARD: The facts are not in dispute: Claimant eras a "protected
employee" as of October 1, 1964 under the provisions of
Section 1 of Article I of the February 7, 1965 Agreement.
Claimant was regularly assigned and held the position of
Signal Maintainer at Cottage Grove, Indiana. On February 16, 1965,
Claimant's position was abolished. Since he was unable to displace
on any position in his seniority district, Claimant took a position
with Carrier as a brakeman on March 1, 1965. He was returned to
service as a Signal Maintainer on August 9, 1965.
The Organization contends that under the terms of the
February 7, 1965 Agreement, Carrier is obligated to pay Claimant
for the 115 days he did not work as a Signal Maintainer.
Carrier takes the position that since Claimant worked
continuously as a brakeman from March i, 1965 to August 9, 1965,
and was compensated more than what he would have received during
the same period as a Signal Maintainer, he was not entitled to be
compensated additionally. Carrier concedes that Claimant was not
compelled to accept the brakeman's position in order to retain his
protective status under the February 7, 1965 Agreement.
In its submission Carrier states: "The Carrier is fully
aware that it has no lawful right to compel an employee protected
under the February 7 Agreement to accept work under another collec
tive bargaining agreement, but when the offer of such employment is
made and the individual employee accepts the offer, the Carrier
satisfies its obligations under the February 7 Agreement, so long
as he continues in such employment at a rate of compensation equal
to or in excess of his guaranteed rate."
The Board finds that there is no such qualification under
the terms of the February 7 Agreement -- whether the employee is com
pensated by the Carrier under a different bargaining agreement, receives

?.caard :'o. ..

Case \o. SC-..-..

- 2 -

compensation as a result of employment outside the industry, or even receives compensation under the terns of an insurance policy. As such the protected employee is entitled to compensation under the February 7 Agreement without offset.

AF,'ARD

The answer to the question submitted is in the affirmative.

Nicholas Fi. mas

Neutral Member

Dated: Washington, D.

April 23, 1969