SMCrrh rn~JID r" AD.TITS72'FNT No. 605

 PARTIES ) Brot,l.erhood of Rail=aay, Air!--.,,-,e and Steauship Clerks,
 TO ) Freight Handler:,, Express & Station Employes
 DISPUTE ) and
 Penn Central (Corm: New York, New Haven & Hartford
 Railroad Coral: ~y) .
 QUESTIONS
 AT ISSUE: (1) Did the Carrier violate the te-~ms of the 1·zL-diation
 Agr~--eat currently in effect as of July 1, 1965,
 when it failed to enter into an implementing agree
 Mic covering the transfer of clerical work from
 one seniority district to another?
 (2) Did the Carrier violate the terms of the Mediation
 Agree mnt wh- it failed and refused to properly
 com· sate Plc. .T. Gaughan, seniority date 10-6-33,
 on the Nets Haven. Division Roster?

OPINION
 OF Bali): On January 12, 1965, the parties entered into a Memorandum
 of Agrcer..:it establishing the Central Billing Depar_::nt as
 a new seniority district at iew Nav,·:n. Thereafter, at
 variou- tirces, billing, work perfor-:d at freight .. .dons
 were transer.:,d to th..^_ Central Billing Denartnent. llowevc:r, on Nove:.:~er 15,
 1965, the Or-Wnization inf ..-~ad the Carri~ that, henceforth, if the Carri^r
 desired to tran.^^:=..:r, cork, it would insist upon an implementing argree=nt pur
 suant to Article 771, of the ?c·bi:uary 7, 1965 National Agree:eanL. Nevertheless,
 on January 1, 1966, the Carrier .,^,bolished the clorical positiolis at llolyo::e,
 without an implc;~ntin;igrc· tent. Upo,t abolislm·,cnt of Clai, at's position at
 Holyoke, ha exercised his seniority and displaced a junior on a Clerk position
 at Easthampton. however, Cl.^inont c=as disqualified within the thirty day period
 due to his in^.bili'.y to l:rrforcc ' :ie duties and was furlouglu d.


                        _ 2 -


Thus, two issues are presented for our consideration in the instant dispute. The first issue i. -elves th. question of an implementing agreement pursuant to Article III, of the February 7, 1965 Agreement. In this regard, we adhcre to our Award Los. 4:' and 1;14, when. .~n we indicated that an implcm-.iting agreecent was not rc;uired where only work was transferred.

 The seccnd issue involves Article II, Section 1, of the February 7, 1965 Agreement: "--failure to retain or obtain a position available to him i.! the exercise: of his seniority rights in accordance with existing rules or agreements, or failure to accept employment as provided in this Article.:." Inasmuch as the Carrier denies that Rule 8, is applicable :rerein, therefore, we confine our analysis to Ru'e 45.

 In Award No. 33, we carefully e-seined rule 45, involving the sarr.~ parties. We therein stated that "---under Rule 45, it was obligatory upon the Carrier to assign the Claimant to a position he was qualified to fill." On October 26, 1966, the Carrier advised Claimant he was: being rec;lled to a permanent vacancy at Poughkeepsie, under the provisions of Rule 45. Notwithstanding such notice, Claimant declined to accept the preferred assignment.

 Therefore, it is our considered -iew that u-on failure of Claimant to accept the a,signment on October 26, 1::~:6, the instant claim mrLy only bt sustained to that date, at the rate of the position held on October 1, 1964, plus subsequent general wage increases.

                        AWARD


              The answer to Question (a) is in the negative.


The answer to Question (b) and (c) is in the affirmative to the exient :fiat Claim.::nt is entitled to be compensated to October 26, 1966, at the rate of the position held on October 1, 1964, plus subsequent general wage increases.

                          ~I~tr1ay :i. Rbhwan __

                          I .13eutral Yember


Dated: Washinf;ton, D. C.
 January 19, 1970