Jwes BENSON, General Chairman H. J. COPFET, Vice-ChairmanSetretary-Treasurer
Office Address:
 Room 210, 109 3rd Ave. No.
 Nashville, Tennessee 37201

WruffEcY4nAb of 41Hainfrnsnre of Wag 3EmpIages

 Affiliated with the American Federation of Labor and Trades and Lobar Congress o/ Canada

 July 15, 1969

 Mr. J. Be Clark, Asst. Vice·Pras.-Pazsacuxel Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company ~'Oc3 ideal '"roadway
 Louisville, Kentucky 40201

 Dear Sir:

 S have former Chief Engineer J. B. Clark's lector of Duns 20, 1869, 21500-fib ==ash, addressed to Mr. J. td, Leinard, calling "r. Leinard's attention to my letter dated December 3, 1963, aaaicaminu claim that u, C. Todd b® paid from :ctober 15, 1958 and continue to be paid as long as Mr. R. C. Unger is uarking- in B&:, :,ang IfB which Mr. Todd :xas cut off an the above mentioned date.

 u3xis claila was held in abeyance with the undorstaruding that 1t wild be settled nn the basis of other c1a1:3s of a si:ailar nature which were Bending before Special Board of Adjustment No. 605. The ;acrd ruled that the other claixs should be paid and that .-:r. Leinard should make arrangements with Ir. Stier's office far payment of this claiaa. As of this date, no letter liar been received addressed to Mr. Stier advisin;; hila to pay this clal°I.

 $ have a letter dated July lg, 1969, addressed to Mr, R. C. Ted frame i_r. 3. kd. Leinard requiring him to report to BBB :,ang 43, Russellville, Fentucky, on July 1&, 169. ixr. Todd is duo to be paid from October 15, 1958 until the data he returned to service which 1 assume according to Mr. lainard's letter will be ,duly 14, 1969. I will appreciate your advising me when P:r. Todd will receive payment of this claW-.

 Yours truly,

 Jet. :%NSX
 :,moral Chairman

 bcc: Mr. H. C. Crotty
 Mr. John J. Barta<
 Mr. R. R. Painter
 Dir. R. C, Todd

 AFFILIATED SYSTEMS

 Louisville & Nashville R. R. Tennessee Central By. Frankfort & Cincinnati R. R. Atlanta & St. Andrews Bay Ry.

 Phone 255-6664

 Area Code 615

                                    Case 270. .Li-°-S;3


          SPECIAL BOF.?D OF ADJUSTiM-,'T iv'O. 605


PARTIES ) Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company
 TO TI-IL ) and
 DISPUTE ) Brotherhood of maintenance of V;ay Employes

 QUr',STION t;Tere Mr. R. C. Todd's superior rights
 AT ISSUE: to a position of B&B laborer nullified
 as of February 21, 1966 because Draw
 bridge Tender R. C. Unger, a "pros=cted
 employe", was assigned to a position as
 laborer in a BBB gang and paid therefor
 at Drawbridge Tender's rate.
 OPINION R. C. Todd, an unprotected employee, is senior
 OF BOARD: to R. C. Unger, a pro-Lected employee, as B&B laborer.
 On February 21, 1966, Mr. Todd unsuccessfully sought to displace Mr. Unger in that position. In their submission the Employes cite the interpretations of November 24, 1965, which provide that unprotected employees retain their seniority rights over junior protected men.

 Carrier acknowledges that senior unprotected employees are entitled to preference to positions over junior protected men, in general. In this instance, it cons said, there was no basis for the exercise of seniority because .dr. Unger had been given a "make-work" assignment, which was done "solely for the purpose of affording work to a 'protected' employee."

 The record does not disclose the work actually performed by hir. Unger. Carrier noted that he ;.;as in a B&B gang. Duties performed in a B&B gang, no matter what the motivation for their assignment, fall within the jurisdiction of the Maintenance of Way Employes and are governed by the Agreement.

 A question concerning the enforcement of the rights of unprotected employees like PIr. Todd has beer raised in the Disputes Committee. Their rights are not covered by the February 7 Agreement, it was said, but arise under the basic rules, whose application is the province of the Adjustment Board; thus any seniority claim of an unprotected employee
                                    A?1'AP,D iIO. ~~

                                    Case !,To. ;-9-.Se.


should be referred to the Adjustment Board for disposition under the rules. Award No. 50 was cited in support of this approach.

 Although the claim is that of an unprotected employee who asserts a violation of seniority rights, its origin is in Carrier's contention that tire February 7 Agreement provided certain superior rights for protected ernploye2s in COnnOCU'-l.On w7.t%Z "ma)se-work." It is this Committee's function to interpret the February 7 Agreement. Tire rules nay become enmeshed in a case before us, and this has frequently occurred. But adjudication involving the February 7 Agreement and the November 24 Interpretat ions, and the relative rights of protected versus unprotected employees under there, properly comes before the Disputes Committee.

 Award No. 50 is not applicable. Not only did it concern "tire particular facts and circumstances of this case," but the issue required an interpretation of the basic schedule agreement solely. Here, it is necessary to decice tire preferential rights of a protected employee to "make-o:ork" under tire 1965 Agreement. Carrier had not contended that it was justified because of the rules--but, in effect, because of :dr. Unger's status under the 1965 Agreement as an "unassigned 'protected' employee."

                        A Y7 A R D


              The answer to the Question is "No.".


                        t4ilton Friedman Neutral Member


Dated: Washington D.C.
 June 10, 1969

 _2_