PARTIES ) Brotherhood of Railway, Airliuc and Steamship Clerks,
 TO ) Freight Handlers, Express & Station, Employes
 DISPUTE ) and
 Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company (Pere M-:rquctte DistricO
 QUESTIONS
 AT ISSUE: (1) Did the Carrier violate the provisions of Article IV,
 Section 1 of the A;;reement when commencing with June 30,
 1968, it failed to properly compensate Mr. Edward PoineL:u,
 a "protected employee", under the terms of the February 7,
 1965 Stabiliz-ri_on of Employment Agrc-,ment, at the normal
 rate of compe· tion of the position held by him on October
 1, 1964, plus ;u',>sequent general wage increases.
 (2) Shall Carrier be required to con;pensate Mr. Poineau by
 the addition of $17.46 a month to his gua·antecd rate of
 compensation effective June 30, 1968, in addition to three
 and on::-half percent wage increase effective July 1, 1968,
 includ-ig general wage increases subsequent to July 1, 1968,
 until the violation is corrected.
 OPINION
 OF BOARD: The pertinent r rtion of Article IV, Section 1, of the February
 7, 1965 Nato. ial Agreement, applicable herein, is hereinafter
 quoted:
 "---provided, however, that in additio; thereto such
 comp·n, rtion shall be adjusted to include subsequent general
 wage increases."
 On April 2, 1968, an Implementing Ab_eement was executed which
 provided for the distribution of the CLassificat9.on and Evaluation Fund established
 under Article IV of the December 28, 196'1 Natioizal Wage Agreement. The instant
 dispute is predicatcti on the failure of the Carrier to pay Claimant the additional
 amount of $17.46 n·:r month, arising out of selected increases in the rates of certain
 positions. Thus, tlce issue presented is whether distribution made pursuant to the
 Classification and Evaluation Fund should be construed as a subsequent general wae-e
 increase.

 In A~:ard No. 163, we carefully reviewed the identical problem and concluded that incrc_ses granted under the Classification and Evaluation Fund are not to be conside:-ed as subsequent general wage increases, as contemplated by Article IV, Sectiu:t 1.

 1-;e would note further that the Classification and Evaluation Fund directs that the fuc,d be allocated among selected positions which are determined to he out-or-lin-. In addition, F;uidelin s were established in order that inequities would be eliminated--both intra-plant and inter-plant. In this context, it would be most inappropriate to ho l: that such payments to selected positions are equivalent to a general wage increase.
                                            Case No. CL-16-SE


We are mindful o'- the fact that the Board in Award No. 147, reached a dif`ere;: result. Nevertheless, we are constrained to adhere to our previous conclusion b;,sed upon an exhaustive and thorough analysis of the concepts and factor:; involved in job deteiziination evaluation.

                        AMID


            The an;.wer to Questions 1 ei,a 2 is in the negative.


                  ' i

                  ~ ,,-)i


                  /-L

                    ~c.r~(: r %i- r

                      trray 14' Rbhman

                      leutral I'lember

                      /i


                      v/


Dated: Washington, D. C.
 J. :uary 19, 1970