SPECIAL. BOARD OP h.DJUST2:NT N0. 605
PARTIES ) Brotherhood of 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 IMwdi.ation : greeT:ent
when 'Mr. D. W. Caldwell, Assistant T:aintainer,
was not recalled to compensated service on the
Pittsburgh East End Seniority District by :larch
1, 1965?
(b) Should .Ir. Caldwell now be recalled to service
on his home seniority district?
(c). Should N,r. Caldwell nova be allowed travel tile,
meal and lodging expenses for each working day
commencing
2-iFzrch 1,
1965, that he is obliged to
work on another seniority district, such claim to
continue so long as he works on another seniority
district due to Management's failure to recall him
to service on his own seniority District by D:arch
1, 1965?
OPINION
OF BOARD: The issue to be resolved in this dispute is identical
to that of Award No. 54 (Case No. SG-7-E), and the
Board
is governed accordingly.
A14ARD
Parts (a) and (b) are not in dispute; part (c) is
answered in the negative.
1
Nicholas H. Zlas
Neutral Mer~r
Dated: Washington, D. C.
April 23, 1969