SP;CIA7 BOt1F;D OF ADJUST,?cid`C' I50. 605
PA2T2;;S ) L.^high Valley Railroad Company
TO TIM ) arid
DISPJT3 ) Brot_hexaood oi- ?a.i.ntenance of Way Employes
QLTUST20iil Did the guaranteed compensation of
AT ISSUE: Mr. Cl.a.yrc 33. iiatr, effective April 1,
1965 continue to be $47?..7.8 per month
or was it reduced to $2.440 per hour?
OPINION 2n accordance with an agreement
between
the
OL~ BOARD: parties dated August 25, 1958,
Claimant'
S
rate as
Foreman was p.=''E:s^xVed a1t:1Gl7gh le
w,-..c;
clownrjYadce)
t0 LabJreT.'. Cr:·.rrJ.C'.:C COn:C:ndS that under the Oct6-ner 7, 3.0159,
Mediation Agrc.el'nCnt tl1 is gLlc iantP.C vas 1051: when 1111! Employes
(-ailed to specify its coYair?ua-vion. Powever, allegedly by
error, Claimant
COTli.lrlll·Cll
to receive v'oreman's rate until.
April l., 1965, fGllocrirl~ the agreement of February 7. On
April 1, tile allcnae.nce was discontinued.
Claimant is a protected employee. Article 2V,
Section 1, of the February 7., 1965, Agreement provides that
protected employees "shall not be placed in a worse position
with respect to coaap2nsation than tile normal rate of compensation for said regularly assigned position on October 1, 1904."
On that date, Claimant was working as a Laborer, but: receiving
Foreman's rate pursuant to the 1958 Agreement.
This issue must be decided in accordance with
Article VI, Section 4, which provides as follows:
Where prior to the date of this agreement
the Washington Job Protection Agreement
(or other agreements of similar type whether
applying inter-carrier or intra-carrier) has
been applied to a transaction, coordination
allowances and displacement allowances (or
their equivalents or counterparts, if other
descriptive terms are applicable on a particular railroad) shall be unaffected by this
zgreement either as to amount or duration,
and allowances payable under the said Washington Agreement or similar agreements shall not
AWARD NO.
Case No. 2!'d-1-E
be considered compensation for purposes
of determining the ccinpensation due a
protected employee under this agreement.
The "amount or duration" of allowances such as
that
which
had been granted to Claimant are "unaffected" by
the February 7 Agreement, according to the above--quoted provision. Section 4 neither guarantees continuance of such
allowance nor authorizes discontinuance. The allowances are
simply outside the 1965 Agreement's purview.
Section
a
dogs say explicitly, however, that
"allowances payable...shal.l not b= considered compensation
for purposes of
determining
the compensation due a protected
employee under this agreement." What the February 7 Agreement
considers co;np:~n;,at-i.on due a protected
employee
is what is
spec:i:Eied in Article TV, Section 1.: tl_"normal rate o = compE:115ati_Oi1 for said rcgulE,,rly assigned positions." The regularly
assi.cjncd po5_ci.on of Cla irnant is, without question, that of
Laborer. The "IlOrisla.l rate Of COi:irJ^n5a'i..iU11" 1.S tha-" which the
Carrier has paid since April 1, 7.965.
The extent of this Committee's authority is the
February 7 Agreement and no more. It cannot ma',:e an award of
an allowance "4Jili.Ch shall not be considered compensation for
purposes of determining the compensation due a protected employee
under this agreement." It can award only the compensation
vfnich a protected employee is guaranteed by the 1965 Agreement.
That is the position's normal rate.
Consequently, the claim is not properly before
this Committee, but roust be handled in another tribunal, in
accordance with the rules.
A T4 A K D
Claim dismissed.
Mi~r ie maa
Neutral idember
Dated:
Washington,
D.C.
June 10,
1969
_2-