SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTitc,iVT N0. 605
PARTIES )Brotherhood Railroad Signalmen
TO ) and
DISPUTE ) Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company
QUESTION
AT ISSUE: (a) Did Carrier violate and does it continue
to violate the February 7, 1965 Mediation ~'.Gree-
ment when Mr. E. W, Lantz, Signal
Maintainer,
was not recalled to compensated service on the
Cumberland Division by March 1, 1965?
(b) Should Mr. Lantz now be recalled to service
on his seniority district?
(c) Should Mr. Lantz now be compensated for any
loss in wages, travel time, meal and lodging ex
penses for each day commencing March 1, 1965,
that he is obligated to work on another seniority
district? Should such allowances be made so long
as he continues to work on another seniority district
due to Management's failure to recall him to service
on his own seniority district by March 1, 1965?
OPINION
OF BOARD: The issue to be resolved in this dispute is identical
to that in Award No. 54 (Case No. SG-7-E), and the
Board is governed accordingly.
AWARD
Parts (a) and (b) of the Issue are not in dispute;
part (c) is resolved in the negative.
Nicholas H. um
N_utr
eutral M~ernn-bre
Dated: Washington, D. C.
April 23, 1969