PART 1BS o~. ,. .tw.ny ~i.S.
TO ' ,
DISPUTE ) :_ild


QUESTIO;qS

 AT ISSUE: (1)Did tlic ca.::rie:: vi.oiate t~_:: .::ovisi.oizc c.,:;t.ic~.: I'v,












OPINION .
 OF BOARD: The instant dispute is based upon tl:c refusal of tha Cr-tier
 to apply a five cents per hour increase CD :re protectee r-to
 of the Claim:nt. The Decen_Scr 28, 1907 ti-.tiional S:c - A^
 `,.-
 rent, provided for general cr38e increases us wc17. as a Class-
 ification and Evaluation Fund pursuant to z1v:ticie IV th;:reof. On A·;ril 2;
 1968, tile parties entered into an i Free.^.:°llt clazcifying thn :,:warier ill L'·ilish
 the Classification and Evaluation Fund would be distributed, ;: portion of t7i:ich
 is hereinafter quoted:









the fund 1:1 order to arrive at ::11 eqilJ.t'.':?il: 1i1::_ .., Ci .:n, -., ~.: G: ::.
ue;aaean comparable jobs which utilize similar skills and ..urun,iLilii-i.:_ss both in the industry as wall ..., in the area.

 Section J, further, providos for ., i%=i:hGCi of M=Qy'Mon in the event: the pcxties a_.. uneble to roach sgrcam,n^.:.

 However, on this property, the partico entnrcc: Btu <... greement on June 19, 1968, inplewanting too mechanics or such: sistribution. briefly, some positions d?.d not receives any pay adjustment, Uharanc 02._.. positions received increases of varyl, annunts, 1:11;:, nec·assnuily, -rims to the fore the crux of the instant dispute. Is tucie a diliern~ce batowan

 L
 increase as contrasted with increase.. undur.a ""= Evaluation Fund?

 The Neutral Merher recently had occasion to grapple with a som_what similar problem en the Serhoayd Coast Line. We believe tha following com:;wnt contained in Award ho. 1, Issue A, is pertinent herein:

              "L'1e noes approrch the question of a gene-al wngc

_, increase versus ill inequity increase. In CL general
            wage increase, all covered em2loyce s receive an equal

            cents-par-Lour increase across-the-board, or , rcentagC

                    ^

            increase. In=e impact here is on all employees. Porlcc,

            an inequity increase is the antithesis of . Sonora! wa;

            increa:.e. Under an inequity increase, the factors of the

            job are carefully scrutinized in order to deterwine who_her

            certain jobs are out of line in tie dif `ernt classificrsion s.

            Ii out of line jobs are uncovered, adjust=ts are applied to

            realign the dislocation and thereby maintain an equiti'oi;.

            system of job classifications. Again, the jobs are evrained

            and rated; at no time is the iacunbeat who parlorms thc: job

            rated, unless he is paid a red circle rate."


As we view Section 2, of the Classification and Evaluation Fund, the guidelines set forth therein are specifically dosilne d to adjust rates in order to eliminate inequities and to modernize the rata structure.

 In this context, is the Classification and Evaluation Fund established under the December 28, 1967 National Wage As-ee.-ont, a "sub.^-se;uan t general wage increase," as contemplated by Article 1U, Section 1, of tic February %,`1965 National Agreement? The Organization argues that such Fund
                          - 3 -


is consi.d.orecl the. sou;:oe for ~, 8~72cra.1 I·:~e incr;.ac; ~.., ,:~li; b::G_'__zi_G~,:i
 was tl:e only ~r~:.n-i.,etion involve ,.~ ;-. _ :~; T:, , :__, , ,.~ .: _,
 the manifested infe72t o.. the pn I: Cics t'tl..:_ Li:c i u::,'~ b_ nrrc .~.I~·~ , _ .._
 .,. 'cc.'neral ,.a~C increase. 111 fr.Ci:, a t tl- ti- i.:i,_ l'cl-L:~.i:y 7, .!`i::;>!-.~;,:.0.::.1
                                                ,

E~rCe::-~a7t was executed, the p.^riiC;' di_G not enVi£7.0'_7 i·;?.;:ion=.1 ~., _,W .r,C='W :SG;
 of tllc type roflected by tha Dece:i,-G-,' 28, 1967 l,~7ee:::-._..

            l:'e ,.,_e not unIiI:d~ui. of ,...o or· .44.L:._io::., ~. . ....-.t .

                                      . ,.,


1.O'.JCVoT, lit our V1c^.C9, Sde Cannot (:1E-'C~C'?:C'W `.il_:V .p:.:~L.:.LS li:_CLv~:c: .='~y::,attached t0 theli: O'.971 a.NZCC:i'.~aii:_. ~:_r, ne"ot_~.;:0':S, Oil boiLh .,....,r., 5: 1-iC
 experts in tl:e industry, hnowledeeablc sac: S01-1ni.::~l_c~te3> '1'nay ..:. , _~.~ed
 the word;: "Uencral incre"Ise's", "Ginssif.catioa a71d }J'ValU,~iG'~i - .....:.~, c ., ,.,;:11
 as Suidalincas for t71P. lal-:ter. Henlce, w,', are r2C.aiTCd LO J112:CT(.~Ci: 'iS~ r,:Ce
 ImIlts as written by them.

            It 1s, the::cfore, Our

                if i c at io n a~ the s s unclle r te consiJCla.d o`JiniCJn that: .: _ :_ :i:r ',~_,-

      ' EValUatlO:: Fui:d '-C not t0^GC in, Cll:c:::d

~r
 an ct ~lzd
 as a subsequent general wade increase pursuant to ?lrticle IV, Section 1, of tct2 lebruary 7, 1965 Nation»1 1:erc:c,r.^r_..

                        (~'i~ a.1tD


            The answer to questions (7.) and (2) is in the n·:-'ative.


                      v:u2ray 14. Rcllm~,n

                      Neutral 't:ember


Dated: Washington, D. C.
        November 17, 1969