SPECIAL NO-)ARP OF AT'ITTSTtT%NT NO. 605
PARTIES ) Maine Central Railroad Company - Portland Terminal Company
TO ) and
DISPUTE ) Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks,
Freight Handlers, Express & Station Employes
QUESTION
AT ISSUE: In the third paragraph of Article V of the February 7,
1965 Mediation Agreement, Case No. A-7128, does the phrase -
' " . . . . .lump sum separation allowance which
shall be computed in accordance with the
schedule set forth in S:ztion 9 of the Washing
ton Agreement . . . . ."
mean, for an Employee with over fifteen (15) years of service
that he is entitled to twelve (12) months' pay based on his
rate of pay and assignment as wee paid the Employee involved
in this case, or should one (1) month's pay be computed as
outlined igy, subparagraph (b) of Section 9 of the Washington
Job Protection Agreement which, multiplied by twelve (12),
would be approximately sixteen and one-half (16`.) months' pay
as claimed by the:
Brotherhood?
OPINION
OP BOARD: On July 17, 1968, claimant's position was abolished. Thereupon,
he elected to resin and accept a lump sum separation :11owance
in lieu of transferring to a point of employment wh':h would re
quire a change of residence.
Article V, of the February 7, 1965 National Agreement, provides
that a protected employee who has fifteen or more years of employment with a Carrier
shall be given "---a lump sum separation allowance which shall be computed in nccord
ance with the schedule sat forth in Section 9 of Vs Washington Agreement;" In order
to facilitate computation of such lump suet settlcmenq extracts o£ Section 9 (a) a=id
(b), were anpendixed to the February 7, 1965 agreement.
The May 21, 1936 Washington Job Protect·rn Agreement, Section 9,
contains a schedule of separation allowances for various length of service periods.
Inasmuch as Claimant had over fifteen years length of service, he was entitled to
a separation allowance of twelve months' pay. The instant dispute arose because
of the Carrier's method of computing the twelve months' pay due Claimant.
Prior to Claimant's job abolishment, he was regularly assigned
Monday through Friday, with Saturday and Sunday rest days. Therefore, the Carrier
contends that the lump sum separation allowance should t· calculated by multiplying the daily rate by five days, then multiplying the result by fifty-two weeks.
In the absence of an agreed upon method of computation, we would
endorse tha Carrier's presentation. However, Section 9(b), of the Washington Job
_ z _
Award No. 192
Case No. CL-41-1:
Protection A~ ree::~ec:~, provides as fo110%~s:
"(b) One month's pay shall be cos,puted by multiplyJ.n1;
by 30 the da'il'y rate of pay received by the employee
in the position last occupied prior to time of coordi
nation."
We would further a.;rce with the Carrier's arnument that, otherwise, it "would result in ..^t tro:.:im,:L.::y siyteen and one-ha?.f months' pay which
the schedule clearly specifies is due him." Nonetheless, we would remind the
Carrier that Section 9(b), is crystal-clear and unambiguous. It states that one
month's pay shall be computed by multiplying the daily rate by thirty -- not
may
be but sl·all bc=: ,
In essence, the Carrier is requesting us to amend Section 9(b),
so t::at it c:·ould conform to the modern day trend tow, 2d a reduced work week. Thus
far, however, the parties have not seen fit to bestow this Board with such vast
powers. Hence, we are requirad to decide the issue on the basis of the language
presently contained in Section 9(b).
It is, therefore, our considered view that the lump sum separation
allowanc,
a:all
b2 c.;.:puted as provided by Section 9(b), of the Washington Job Protection A. recraent.
AWAR'a
The answer to the Question is that the lum, sum separation
allowance sha.".l be computed i:~ the manner set forth in Section 9(b) of the Washington
Job Protection Agr;_ment.
__ , _ /~ ~ / it
i~
jmurray M. Rolacan
,'Neutral Member
Dated: Wasl;ington, D. C.
January 19, 1970