SPECIAL ::O"%'D OF A.D JUSTi:"1;T i;0. C.C5
PA=TIES ) Brotherhood of Railway, Airiino and S;_-cams'-4,p Clerks,
 TO ) Freight :Iandlers, Express & Station Employes
 DISPUTE ) and
 Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad C=pan
 QUESTIONS
 AT ISSUE: 1. Did the Carrier violate the provisions of Feo=uary 7,
 1965 Agreement, particularly Articles TIT and VII=
 thereof, when it: transferrec a protected cr.-r;loy- c:it::
 seniority rights uncer the 2:ainte. ance of .:ay L:::p_o;· s'
 Agreement across craft lines to fill position o_` ::ail
 Handler, Job -No. 1058, at St. Joseph, , ""issouri on
 October 3, 1966?
 2. Shall the Carrier be required to compensate E:ara
 Clerk John Salcedo for wage loss suffered on Ccto~ar

OPINION
 OF BOARD: The facts in the instant dispute reveal that on __onday,
 October 3, 1966, there existed a one-day te:::porary vc.c_ncy
 in the Mail Handle;: job at St. Joseph. The Org^nisa-_ic n
 alleges that despite the availability of several C,:a14 'Jed
 employees to perform the work, the Carrier, nonetheless, as_i-Inac 4 .protected
 furloughed employee, available for extra work, from another cra-ft--t c :-ain,.,.
 nance of Way Organization.
The Carrier concedes that it intended "to get so::::: serv-ica of him during the month that would equal his protected comnensatio n.' _.-, reference is to the assignr.-ent of the protected furloughed >:ofid er;ployea to perform work within the scope of the co-.»laining Brotherhood.
ed d in t"-.C instant dispute which require analysis.
the National Railroad Adjustment Board, Third Division "n
 2?ay 2, 1969, in Award 17107, the Board, sitting wits: a referee, ._,._
 follows:




Therefore, the in-till quastion befora us _s vat:at::cr .... :ava jurisdiction.? It cannot lee ;,,ai nsaid, ur.c:c- cercain ci.rcumstan ccs, tl~_~ different forums may onto=-twin concurrer:c ju:iodietion oa cl:: _:,: ..__.._;:t
CI1CrOpCi1111S uAOn the r1;11tS Ot C1t:Cr f0_CLi. u _C, ,., SCOI:;: _-u--
 was properly presented to c.m: .,:u.r4 Divisio::. In. t::c· . a..._ ,·C,~:, ,_., _.-c..,:_. _
 claim arising out of th.e February 7, 1965 ..atio:al A-rc=_-t, _,- ....,_.. , __
 properly before our Disputes Committee.
Having determined that tae ;nay, si:nlmrly, ..::~rcvs; uri c:icticn of an issue within our province c.e.^,pite a prior detcn:._;;st~.o:: by ~,., ._-i_c· Division, the next inquiry is directOd at the precise iccuc pr;;sen~ec: ::erein. Do WC (lave jurisdiction of tae instant dispute? 'Ih,Qu::Stions ~.. 1-`:uc i.^. (L) is stated as follows:

 "Did the Carrier violate tl:e provisions Of ~eb:ns-ry 7, 1965
 "reer^,ent, particularly Articles ITI and VIII thereof, ---. ;.r::icles Trl and
 VIII are concerned wits: techr.oloCieal, op erational and or5a niiLtaOnal c ....
 which, under certain circumstances, require IMO 1cmenti-n;; --rce-.2-., . lr. L,.
 t
 instant dispute, none o~ the cliar.-as coaCesplated by these a=-- _,.lcs involved

 _L-lia.

 However, this merely exacerbates the problem. Ina first part .,-: Question
 at Issue contains the crux of the instant dispute. L:ere tile prcvisicn s of the
 February 7, 1965 Agreement violated?

 Hence, the Carrier was not required to enter into an i;:1;..,.n~_

 In this regard, Article II, Section. 3, provides

 "ii:len a protected employee is entitled to cunder this Agreement, he nay be used in eccordal;ce ·.,_t., existing seniority rules for vacation rcliGf, tlGliday

            1

vacancies, or sic.c relief, or for env other ceinnorL--y ass:Znments which do not -require the crossing of craft lines."

 UUnder this Section, 1100. Can the Carrier validly 2.r.-uv' t:tat 1t was 'yC'=.'.-'!tCG t0 use a protected !,:of ;J employee to perform wore: of ancther craft?

 The second Question, ae Issue seeks con^ensaticn for H ::cr:7p~rotected employee. ?:e stated in Award SC, that unc'~r Question and L\o. 7, Article I, Section 1, of the November 24, 1965 intCrp=-CtatiOnS, -. unprotected employee does not acquire any rights Iron: the i·ebruary 7, 1965 Agreement.

 It is, therefore, our considered opinion that the Carrier violated the February 7, 1965 Agreement. However, the question of co:pOnsation for the unprotected employee is net properly before us.

 Av7ard :

 The answer to Question (1) is in tile affirma~ive. T._: a.._:7cr to Question (2) is not properly before us.

 ~cutral Member

 Dated: F;asllin,^,ton, D. C.
      December 17, 1969