SPECLaL BOARD OF ADTr18TI2ENT N0. 605
D - --_-~. . y __ _
PARTIES ) Brotherhood c.` Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks,
TO ) Freight Dandlers, Express & Station Eml.ioyes
DISPUTE ) and
St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Company
QUESTIONS
AT ISSi;.: (1) Did the Carrier violate the provisions of Article
IV of the: February 7, 1965 Ag.reement when it failed to pro
tect !lr.
William ,l.
Schreiber, St. Louis, Mi;_,souri, an em
ploye covered by the provisions of Article IV, Section 1 of
t.;at Agreement at his l;uaranteed rate of pa; plus subsequent
wage increases when Nr. Schreiber exercised his seniority on
a position at his ho-o station of St. Louis, Missouri which
carried a lower rate of compensation rather than exercisin;
his seniority to a position of like or higher rate of pay
at the station of Springfield, Missouri located some 230 miles
distant from his home station?
(2) Shall, the Carrier now be required to compensate Mr. Schreiber
for the wage losses suffered beginning on and after September 2,
1966 and accord him the full allowances and Lenefit: prescribed
in the February 7, 1965 Agreement?
OPIi:10;; '
OF BOARD: On April 27, 1964, all positions in Seniority District 1; . 5,
were transferred f:om S,:. Louis to Springfield--except Claimant's
Record Rocca Clerk. On September 2, 196.., Claimant's position in
St. Louis was abolished. At this juncture, Claimant could have
exercised his seniority in District Ile. 5, now located in Springfield, or pur;:uant
to Rule 15,filed application for positions in other seniority dist:-icts and be
given p::,:t:erence over non-employees. He opted the latt^r route and was assigned
the position of office Boy in Seniority District No. 6, at St. Louis. As a conse
quence thereof, lie suffered a loss in wages of $2.89 per day, which is the basis
of the instant dispute.
In
oLt
view, Aw·rd ho. 68, sheds light an th_s question, as hereinafter quoted:
"Sections 1 and 3 of Article IV, (considered together
with Question and Answer No. 1 interpreting Section 3) mean
that a protected employe's guaranteed compensation shall not
thereafter
LL
leg:, than the normal rate of compenration he
was entitled to on October 1, 1964, unless the cuploye voluntarily
chooses to tc':c the lower rated position. If he chooses to tn'r·
the lower ra,..-d position, then the rate of that position beco,
his guarcenteeo rate of compensation."
In fact, the Carrier now advances the same argument., r;;ther
their;
- 2 - Award No. 193
Case No. CL-'-1-td
its initial one that.
Cl.a:ir-:l:
lost his protected status, to wit:
"Furtl,crraorc, Lrticl-a IV, Section 3 states that a
protected emp)oyc who bid: in a job v3luntarily will have
th,. rate of the job upon whicn he bids. So even if Claimant
propcriy bius on thr St. Louis pos·_tion, the basic in' rt
of this provisie and Interpretation IV, Section 3, Questions
1 and 2 1.C ti:~It
a15 CTlj"01';_ Wi~O
tilruUFil -~lll,untary action, as
opposed to an action of the Carrier, chooses to occupy a lower
rat,·d position, shall h-ve hi^ p,uarantec determined at the
rate of the position he elects."
It is, therefore, our vies; that. Claimant is entitled to protectc-d status
and compensation at the rate of the Officc Boy Position he bi in at St. Louis,
in Seniority Distri,t No. 6.
AWARD
The answer to Quc::tions (1) and (2) is answered in the affirmative to the
extent that Claimant is entitled to protected status at the rate of the Office Boy
Position in Seniority District No. 6.
j ,/ // 4 ~_ ,:,: !~ %.'', /
Murray Pi. Roh:uan
,Neutral Member
Dated: Washingt-n, D. C.
January 19, 1970