t


                        SPECIAL BOARD Or AD,1US=NT 1110. 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 Twdiation Agree,-znt

              when Nor. C. J. Castor, P.ssittant Signal idaintainer,

              was not recalled to compensated service on the

              · St. Louis Division East End Seniority District by

              March 1, 1965?

              (b) Should Mr. Castor now be recalled to service

              on his home seniority district?

              (c) Should Mr. Castor nova be allowed pay for all

              travel time, meal and lodging expenses, and any

              wage loss incurred for each working day com:,-iencing

              March 1, 1965, that he is obliged 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: On October 1, 1964 Claimant was a "protected" employee

              under the terms of the February 7, 1965 Agreement. At

              that time he held a regular assignment as an Assistant

              Signalman on Carrier's East End St. Louis Division.

              On October 23, 1964 Claimant was furloughed and could

              not displace on any position in his seniority district. On ;:arch 2,

              1965 he accepted employment as a Signal 2,.aintainer, a higher rated

              position, on the I-lest End St. Louis Division. On July 23, 1965

              Claimant cans dismissed from Carrier's service because of failure

              to comply with certain rules.


                Under the terms of the February 7 Agreement there is no obligation on the part of the Carrier to restore an employee to compensated service on his home seniority district. Section 1, Article I of the agreement only requires restoration to "active service". If the parties intended that such restoration to active service be on the employee's home seniority district, the agreement would have so stated.


                The question of meals, travel and lodging has been answered by this Board in Award No. 54 (Case No. SG-7-E).

        -2- Award 'No. 59

                      Case SG-14-E


      A? lA^~D


The answer to the question presented is in the negative.

 Nicholas H. G ~a:as
 Neutral 2·` m' er

 Dated: Washington, D. C.
 . April 23, 1969