PARTIES ) Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks,
 TO ) Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employes
 DISPUTE ) and
 St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Company
 QUESTIONS
 AT ISSUE: (1) Did the Carrier violate the provisions of the February
 7, 1965 Agreement particularly Article 1, when extra list
 employes were designated as "furloughed" employes for the
 purposes of the February 7, 1965 Agreement?
 (2) Shall the Carrier now be required to restore the sixty
 six (66) named employes in Employes' Exhibit No. 1 to the
 status of protected "extra list" or "extra board" employes
 rather than "furloughed" employes and reimburse them
 accordingly?
 OPINION
 OF BOARD: Although the submissions by both parties in the instant
 matter are voluminous, the nub of the issue is whether the
 Claimants named therein are on the extra list, or furloughed,
 employees. The Carrier argues it


In support of its argument, the Carrier cites Rule 1-Scope, Rule 2-Definition of Clerk, Rule 4-Seniority Groups, Rule 5-Seniority Districts, and a system map.
that the Claimants herein are extra list employees and not furloughed?
 Rule 24- Reducing Forces -- specifically includes the phrase e-;tra list.
 Rule 25- Seniority Rosters -- specifically includes the phrase extra board.
 Rule 27- Positions Abolished -- again extra board is contained therein.
 Rule 11- Former Position Vacant -- has extra list included. Especially
 stressed by the organization is

                          -2- Case No. CL-21 :d


Similarly, Rule 21 (b) and (c) contains the term extra list, as sell as Rule
 22. How many more times is it necessary to include the term extra list or
 extra board before this Carrier will take cognizance that such terms are in
 cluded in its effective Agreement? What puzzles us though, is the Carrier's
 insistence that such extra boards do not exist in the traditional understanding
 of that term in the industry. -

 Article I, Section 1, of the February 7, 1965 National Agreement contains the term "extra employees on extra lists pursuant to agreements or practice --- and where extra boards are not maintained ---." Thus, the National Agreement recognized both extra lists or extra boards. Further, the effective Agreement on the property is replete with references to extra lists or extra boards. In this context, we are compelled to accept the language as agreed to by the parties and as traditionally used in the industry. Hence, it is our conclusion that the Claimants herein are on the extra list and not furloughed employees.

 Inasmuch as the parties have made no effort to reach agreement on the property as to the status of the 66 Claimants herein, we are remanding the matter back to the property. The purpose of such remand is solely to determine the individual status of the Claimants in the context of our decision.

                        Award


              Answer to question (1) is in the affirmative.


Question (2) is remanded back to the parties for the purpose of determining the status of the individual Claimants predicated on the answer to question (1) .

                        ` cGG

                        Murray M. Ghm~n 'v

                        Neutra ember


                                            1


Dated:. Washington, D.C.
 August 7, 1969 ' -
          INTERPRETATION OF AWARD N0. 125 - CASE N0. CL-21-W


              SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTENT N0. 605


PARTIES ) Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks,
 TO ) Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employes
 DISPUTE) and
 St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Company
 This has reference to dispute between the parties with
 respect to the proper interpretation of Award No. 125,
 Docket CL-21-W, the petitioner, Brotherhood of Railway,
 Airline and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express
 and Station Employes, hereby requests the Disputes Com
 mittee to issue an official interpretation thereon.
 The questions initially submitted to the Board were as
 follows:
 "(1) Did the Carrier violate the provisions of the
 February 7, 1965 Agreement particularly Article I, when
 extra list employes were designated as 'furloughed' em
 ployes for the purposes of the February 7, 1965 Agree
 ment?
 °(2) Shall the Carrier now be required to restore the
 sixty-six (66) named employes in Employes' Exhibit No.
 I to the status of protected 'extra list' or 'extra
 board' employes rather than 'furloughed' employes and
 reimburse them accordingly?"

 OPINION
 OF BOARD: The question presented to us in the original submission
 required an analysis as to whether the Claimants therein
 were considered to be on the extra list or extra board as
 contrasted with a furloughed status. In our Award No. 125,
 dated August 7, 1969, we determined that they were designated as being on
 the extra list or extra board category. Our award, thereafter, remanded
 -the matter to the property "for the purpose of determining the status of the individual Claimants predicated on the answer to question (1)." We would add further that the last sentence in our Opinion stated, as follows:

            "The purpose of such remand is solely to determine the individual status of the Claimants in the context of our decision."


Thereafter, the parties requested an interpretation of our original Award. Specifically, the Carrier argues that inasmuch as question (2) in the original submission was phrased as follows:

                "(2) Shall -the Carrier now be required to restore---."

                                          Award No. 125

                                          Case No. CL-21-W


                        _ 2


hence, the applicability of our Award, could only be effective as of the rendering of such Award No. 125--namely, August 7, 1969.

 We cannot recall a single instance where such' an interpretation has ever been previously placed upon an award. We repeat, our intent in remanding the matter to the property was solely for the purpose of determining the individual status of the Claimants. We did not intend said Award to be considered effective only as of the date of its execution. Nor did we intend to provide compensation for an individual who had previously resigned or retired. Our language was not susceptible to such interpretation and neither was the phraseology contained in the question at issue. It was our manifested intent that the award would be applied to those claims which the parties, on an individual basis, determined were proper. In essence, the purpose of said Award was to require the Carrier to compensate those Claimants, based upon their individual status, as of the date of their original claim and not as of "now"--the effective date of the Award. '

 We are, therefore, again remanding the matter back to the property and fully expect the parties to make a determination as to the individual status of the Claimants, consistent with our intent.

                        Award:


The matter is again remanded back to the property, consistent with our intent, as reflected in said Opinion.

              7


                    /Murray M.( ohman,

                    Neutral Member


Dated: Washington, D. C.
 August 4, 1971