0.1:':. t..~. ~..'LI~..1) --

SP?i,^,:(C_7, 1:;~?;;_ C:? CP.TIi.;'.i.:; ·,'J: :Ci. 60;

PARTYTS ) Brotherhood of Pnilrocd S:i-;;naln.::n
TO ) an CL
DISPUTE ) Chica.-o, Rock Island a:nd Pacific n_ilroad Co::_ac.y

QDGS TI02"S
AT ISSUE: Dial Cmrricr violate t''e i,c;:7.c-~n~::?~ ._ n'. of

June 30, 1966 whcn i:. faiiccl to ;:-_,7il.y`tt:enl,"ovi::i:>ns

thereof to all si;;n:l c~:Jployac.s affect-d by ,..._ rc-

or,,anizaLion which that a~.rcer::ent was ne~;Gtiat~i: to

cover?

- Sha11. Carrier now be roquircd to pay C. A. L::c::,

Richard hol?;rd, 1·i. A. Ti-,)n-_y and 11 non-pl:ot,_c~ce

employwr_s the $7.50.00 a.7-lc·,Janc2 lx-ovie_:: i.o_ in

Section 6 Of tUC JU nC 30, 1966 1..^.:y lei.":.=.IIC7.7?, 2-~a:e.'C- '

Trent?

OPINIOV
Or BOARD: On June 30, 1966 the partics cnte~.Gd into chat 1:<a

~, · . .~ - .,~ -t, p

Capt:LGIled ^ i ?.::.0'.C2x.dU'S7~ Oi A(;rC6:~.t :L "'CIGt L` eW

itl`.'.nt was c^, rCF.(at 0f Certa.i.il ..v?OY~.'~:i'-.%?.t.01'. pl::S

- proposed by Carrier a:zd obj; ctions thcr cto by tl:e

.. ,

Organi'fa ti.Un. The basis for tt10 OY(a:ii3.=ai.0ii S O:J jCv:.ti Ot:,. lJ.::S W aa

the reorSanizaticn plans would be -_n violation or cu:cren;:`S~rel::.u's

Agreement and Article III of the Pebruary 7 Agrcas.ent.

Certain portions of the "X,nerandL`=·1 of f.~.'re~u~ilt" refer specifically to the BCheeiule ag::ecme%t and oi:h-r portions refer Snocif° ically to the February 7 ASreeaent.

The claim in this dispute aril^s becsune Cc:rzior has refused to provide a movinallowance provided for in S_ct'ion 6 Of the "liemoraandunil of A~reC,^.iit'~ on ti:C (;rounds that the: C1a'_i.'.,Ints wcrc nonprotected employss as defined by the February 7 Agreel~:ent.

The issue as set forth by the Or.-ani.zat-ien is ca.eth c.. Carrier. violated the June 30, -1966 Agrec^ent "l33hen It fr;i.led to c;ppIy the provisions thereof t0 Fell simn:ll employes affected by th: reor."anization which that agreemient was negotiated to cover?"

r < a.

Stated anGtll::r r:ay: Dial the June 30, 1:~ :..:.11Graildu:n of Agreement grant to non-protected cc'mployes any benefits they 1,·ould not otherwise have been entitled to uadci: the FabYUary 7 A;;rccacrt?

The Organization takes the position that since t"'12re was

nOtllin3 In the "IsJi;.O:C..:dC·. : Of w:~W'.C::,eat which CIC7.l'.::C:d :?J:1°';irui...Ctrd

F_ c

Ci.iplGy:S OY di.Stl.n~fl_Sh.^.G` nOi.° rGtCCt2d a,iG:t prGtCCt·eii ll

C11i71G~i_:,, of the provisions ..:.Ya applicable to a11. of tnc c-::?loyes.

It is clear that the February 7 Agrcep_lent was intended to

.. 2 - l:~-:- . a ;.:. o

Colt :;o. E~:!-W-._

apply to protected ci-:?oycs only (/..~rc? T.:o. 5G), evzn though ,.,_,.., Locru has ju'risdic'tion to detarmina the _!'.l: i:a-Va_ YiS;hts o'- prMC_ Od =0 noa-
r' protected eror>1Gyas a.. they ai:e ai~ectc:;l by the February 7 Q:_t:c;.:_:t: (Awards .?o. 91 and ho. 111').

There is nothing to prcvcnt the pa'ttics in ,. _ p lcL~nK..
a ^-eem:nt from granting to non-pro_:ectcd cm?lcyes the .,:...._ hancfis ...e
those granted to protected employes, either by C:nploy nii Hm_I_..r !_C.-.,
as that build is the February l Agreement or spicil:ically inHORV -.G:.
v
p-rotccted employes and incorporating those apl1J-iah.slc FeLiLn_y 71.-. ,..._
provisions by reference.

We cannot assume that the Uawtlns lml-uGPClly asroLG'. ..o. i._.-

c 6

Le11d0Ci that those portions ~cOi the`.: June 30, 196J A_'?;C.-1: ei:'v which .G Ci:rLd

i

to the February 7 Agreement covered both non-p^.rGUCI:C:O ..^_:1C1 -::'..'OtLCW_i-

t · ~ _

emplOj'esn:ailUre 1:0 C.iSti.11sL;:t.SU JCLS·,',^.e...i the two categories of C:1a1Oye in the Agreement is not sufficient to constitute an intention to provide benefits to those employes not other-uise entitled.

AWARD

Absent agreement between the pa=tics this Conra:ittea does not have authority to grant benefits to nor,-protected employees similar to those granted to protected employees under. the February 7, 1965 Agreemant.

Nicholas a. z~bhs

Neutral I~.emb,_r

Dated: Washington, D. C.

November 12, 1969