C:._.. :;o. SG-7-a.;
SIi:C:%~L Jt;?_af»
n-
!:>7JU:;";ic17'o_i_Oo GCS
PARTIES ) C1e:.v;·--.I:e t: Ohio ,ailway C07.-Qmny (Ch..>apeal .
_' :c District)
TO ) and
DISFUT:; ) Erothcrhood of R::ilroad Signa lrwn
QUESTION
AT ISSUE: Is Signal lIell,ar Re11 Price entitled to prcscrvati_on
of co::spcnsation and ocher h;:nciits under t;.e February %,
1965 Agrcemsnt?
orzr;ioN
OF EOAI;D: Both parties to this dispute ag;u:ec that Ci<:i::_vs= :.,. .::rt a
' protect:ed" c:n7.oyc undor the ter;-s of the f'..br·:a.u:3 7
Ag;rccmcnt. There is no conten::i.on by ti:;: G~_ _:._. _.~-;~:.
that he should be, and it
readily
coececca, rcl;.ti;-e to the
Issue To ;';e Resolved, that Si::al. l:cl.per Roll =rice is :..~t: ,::.;:utlc~ to
preservation of compensation and other be::ef :i.ts under the Fo:.::u.^.ry %, 195u
Agreement".
The OrEani.ia.tion contends that the Disputes Co:c·nittcc has
no jurisdiction to consider a ratter concerned faith an unnrotectcc: employe
and .seniority rights under the basic agreement.
Carrier states its position as follows:
"1. Claimant did not meet the 'active service' require-cats
of Article I, Section 1, of the February 7, 1965, .^.3reu::;::a,
and therefore did not qualify as an crploye entitled to 'be
retained in service subject to compensation' or any other benefits
provided in the Agreement.
" 2. Claimant was not deprived of any cmployr;:ent to which his
seniority entitled him When, under the circu::atances, tl.e
Carrier used and compensated junior employe:, who had been
listed as 'protected' employes under the provisions of Article I
of the February 7, 1965 Agreement, and the claim is without
merit
and must be denied."
With respect to the question of the jurisdiction of the
Disputes Co:rnittee to consider questions involving unprotected cr.:;loy; ,
Award 97. of this Board is persuasive. There it cons held that "acijudicatio::
involving; the February 7 Agreement and the November 2?; Interpretations, and
the relative rights of protected versus unprotected employer
under
them,
properly comes before the Disputes Committee."
With respect to the question of whether the saniority
rights of a senior unprotected e:nploye are affected by tl:e riE.lvts co^ferrcd
upon junior protected employes under the February 7 P.Creoc:cr.t, the Opinion
in Award 91 is controlling. There the Board stated:
/.l'; ':i
_.u. ·
C)FtSu u0.
SGW·.,>..
- 2 .-
"Although the claim is that of
a
n uup rotcc::cd c:.:pl.oyc.o
47170
asserts a violation of SCVi_Ori.t:y rights, its Oi:J.nl.n i..^.
in Cc;rrier's contention th: t the hcliruary 7 L^rec;ient
provided certain superior r.jilts for protccued employees in
connection with Wake-work.' It is this ConKtuc's,function
to interpret the Rb-ruaxy 7 O;5-ree:a.^at. The ruler ,.:cry
WOO=
cnu,cshcd in a c<ac before u;:., and this has frcqucl;t7y occ.a:ad.
Qt adjudication 7.nVOl.Vlly the February / /yi:C'G::,:iit
al:Cl
ti...
Novenher. 24 Interpretations, and the relative rQlas o`
protected versus unprotected employees under tacm, properly
cones before the Disputes Co:r;;littee.
"Award 1`:0. SC is not applicable. Not only did it co::c_·r;;
'the particular facts and circumstances of this ca3e,' but
the issue required an interpretation of the basic schedule
agreement solely. llere, it is necessary to c:aci.ja th: prefer-,
entia 1 :-fights of a protected employee to 'make-work' u&er
the 1965 Agrce:nent. Carrier had net contended that it was
justified because of the rules--but, in effect, because of
1`:r. Unger's status under the 1965 Agreement as an "unassis.ed
protected' employee.
" 11
AWARD
Absent an implementing Agreement the seniority rights of
4
senior
unprotected employe are not impaired in relation to a junior protected
employe by virtue of the provisions o: the February 7 Agreement.
Nicholas Il. /LiY'ias _
Neutral At
110
Dated: !!a :;li.ngt:oll, 1).C.
June 24, 1969