CROTTY
 FRANK L. NOAKES
 SIDENT SECRETARY-TREASURER
BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYES






                      PRESIDENT

                      19

                      FILE SBA X1605

                      January 21, 1970 General


        Mr. J. J. Berta

        704-06 Consumers Building

        220 South State Street

        Chicago, Illinois 60604


        Dear Brother Berta:


                Re: Awards of Special Board

                  of Adjustment No. 605


        To enable you to bring your records up to date, I am enclosing signed copies of Awards 178 through 186.


                With best wishes, I am


                            Sincerely and fraternally yours,


                                _)~. 4~' 446,03~

                                President


        Enclosures


I- .

 i
                              A*,..2drd No. 178

                              Case No. SC-25-t,'


SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUS%`TNT N0. 605
PARTIES ) Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen
 TO ) and
 DISPUTE ) Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railroad Company
 QUESTIONS
 AT ISSUE: (a) Did Carrier violate the February 7, 1965 Agreement
 when, on July 16, 1967 and by telephone, it advised
 signal employees on the Illinois Division that they were
 being laid off due to a Shop Craft employees' strike,
 said lay-off effective at their starting time July 17,
 1967?
 (b) Should Carrier now be required to pay tie signal
 employees on the Illinois Division eight hours' pay each
 at their respective rates of pay account not being properly
 notified their jobs were abolished as of starting tir= July 17,
 1967?

 OPINION
 OF BOARD: On Sunday morning, July 16, 1967, the Shop Craf°U employes
 went on strike on Carrier's property. Later that day, after
 having determined that train operations could not be continued,
 Carrier issued instructions to its supervisors to give notice
 to all affected employes that their services would not be required until such ti..^e
 as the strike terminated.

 The affected employes of the Organization were notified by telephone during the late afternoon and early evening of July 16, 1967 not to report for work at their starting times the follos:ing day, July 17, 1967.

 As a result the Organization filed claims with the Tn'ird Division (alleging violation of Rule 39 of the schedule agreement; the Au-.ust 21, 1954 National Agreement; the June 5, 1962 National Agreesant; and the Fabruzry 7, 1965 Mediation Agreement) and this Disputes Co-=ittee (alleging violation of the February 7, 1965 Mediation Agreement). The claims were filed on August 30, 1968.

 There is no identification.made in the claims or the submissions between "protected" and "unprotected" employes.
                            Award ado. 172

                            Case No. SG-25-W

                            _ 2 _


The question, therefore, is whether this Disputes Committee is the proper forum to determine the rights of all conce::=;=d. If this claim involved only "protected'! employes or the relative, rights of "protected" and "unprotected" employes, we would be faced with different considerations. As we said in Award No. 151:

              "It is clear that the February 7 Agreem a:-.t was intended to apply t:o protected employes only (Award No. 50), even though this Board has jurisdiction to determine the relative rights of protected and non--protected employes as they a... affected by the February 7, Agreement (Awards No. 91 and No. 111).


Under all circumstances this claim is properly before the Third Division. Its jurisdiction extends and affects all employes by -reascn of the schedule agreements.

 Since the identical claim is before the iaird Division., the claim before this Committee should be dismissed without prejudice.

                          PRARD


Pursuant to the Opinion herein, the claim is dismissed without prejudice.

                            0


                              ~ 0


                        Nicholas H. Zumas ~

                        Neutral rLV


Dated: Washington, D. C.
 January 7, 1970