PARTIES ) Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks,
 TO ) Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employees
 DISPUTE ) and
 St. Louis Southwestern Railway Company
 QUESTIONS
 AT ISSUE: (1) Does Section 8 of the Agreement of May 1936
 Washington, D. C., require the Carrier to provide
 health and welfare benefits to Messrs. Carson Bell,
 Z. F. Burford, John Luke, Sam Miles and 0. J. Peppers,
 employees affected in the October 1, 1961 St. Louis
 Southwestern Railway Company - Southern Pacific
 (Texas & Louisiana Lines), Dallas, Texas, Station and
 Yard Facilities Coordination?
 (2) If the answer to Question 1 is affirmative, shall the
 Carrier now be required to afford Claimants Carson Bell,
 Z. F. Burford, John Luke, Sam Miles and 0. J. Peppers
 the health and welfare benefits that they were
 arbitrarily deprived of?
 OPINION
 OF BOARD: Effective January 1, 1962, facilities of the St. Louis
 Southwestern Railway Company and the Southern Pacific
 Company (T & L Lines) were coordinated, pursuant to the
 protective provisions of the 1936 Washington Job Protection
 Agreement. In substance, the Organization contends that,

Two additional statements contained in the Organization's submission are pertinent herein. It further alleges that, "(S)uch health and welfare benefits are accorded to other employees on Claimants' home road in active service." Also that, "(T)he Carrier's arbitrary elimination of such benefits during months that the Claimants drew coordination allowances is improper and not in keeping with the literal specific language of both Agreements."

 The Carrier, in turn, concedes that the Claimants herein continued in service and performed extra work.


            payments for health and welfare benefits, but during

            periods when work under this rule has not been avail

            able to them and they have performed no service no

            such payments have been made, as no payment for health low

            and welfare benefits is made to cover other employes

            who are furloughed and who perform no compensated

            service for the Carrier.


Illustrative of the instant dispute, the Carrier indicated that Bell performed some work in each month through December, 1963. Thereafter, he has not performed any work but received a Section 7 coordination allowance--and no payments were made for health and welfare benefits.

 At this juncture, we would indicate two statements contained in the submission of the parties which are inapposite. Namely, whether the Carrier continued their health and welfare benefits in those months the Claimants performed compensated service, as well as whether such benefits continue to be accorded to other employees on his home road, in active service or on furlough. We have no means of deciding such variance at our level. Both of these statements can readily be verified on the property. However, assuming that the Carrier's statement is correct, are the Claimants entitled to receive health and welfare benefits in those months that they do not perform compensated service?

 In this regard, the Organization cites two decisions by the Section 13 Disputes Committee, which it contends is dispositive of the issue herein. Docket No. 9, without a Referee, in response to the Questions posed, i.e.,

                QUESTION (1) Is the "average monthly compensation" determined in accordance with the formulae prescribed in Section 6-(c) and 7-(a) of the Agreement, subject to change to conform to subsequent increases and/or decreases in basic hourly rates resulting from general wage adjustments?


                QUESTION (2) Are affected employes who have insufficient seniority to obtain and retain a regular assignment, but who revert to and perform service from the extra list,entitled to compensation under Section 6 or Section 7, of the Agreement, or under a combination of both Sections?


held that the affected employees who perform services from the extra list are entitled to compensation under Section 6 of the WJP Agreement. In Docket No. 127, decided by Referee Bernstein on July 22, 1966, involving some of the same Claimants herein and subsequent to the docketing of the instant dispute with the Section 13 Committee, but thereafter withdrawn pursuant to the February 7, 1965 National Agreement, is an established precedent which our Board is required to follow.

 We have previously stated that precedents are important, though not sacrosanct and where they are relevant to a dispute before us, we shall analyze the precedent Award and when appropriate, we intend to follow it unless contrary to good conscience.
 We have found it necessary to set forth the above statement in view of the Organization's insistance that the "Decision" in Docket 127-and only that portion entitled "Decision"--shall be our guiding light in deciding the instant dispute. The fact that the Decision is predicated on and responsive to the two Questions posed therein, as well as approximately four pages of single space "Findings," are irrelevant and no concern of ours. We should not inquire what was involved therein, but simply accept the bald statement, viz:

      DECISION: The Claimants, regular position holders who

      reverted to the Carrier's furlough list by virtue

      of the coordination, are eligible for Section 6

      benefits and not a combination of Section 6 and

      Section 7 benefits as a matter of interpretation

      of Section 6 (a) and (c). If Section 7 (h) were

      applicable the result would be the same.


Ergo, Referee Bernstein held that these Claimants were entitled to Section 6 benefits, i.e., they were continued in service. Therefore, for a period not exceeding five years following the effective date of such coordination be placed in a worse position--this, of course, includes health and welfare benefits.

 Prior to analyzing the dispute in Docket 127, we would further indicate the thrust of the Organization's position herein. Paraphrasing the Organization, it is to the effect that once an employee becomes entitled to a Section 6 displacement allowance, i.e., one who is continued in service, he always remains in that category and that his entitlement becomes fixed at the time of coordination as to whether he is subject to Section 6 or 7. In effect, if he commences as a Section 7, then he is governed by Section 7 (h) and not Section 6. Why? Otherwise, the WJP Agreement would have contained a Section 6 (h).

 Although the parties have failed to cite a specific Award on this aspect, the Carrier contends that an employee who performs service in a given month is entitled to a Section 6 displacement allowance and in those months in which he does not perform compensated service, he is entitled to a Section 7 coordination allowance. However, such metamorphoses in the employee's status are controlled by monthly changes and are not to be fragmented by days within a month.

 Our analysis of the instant dispute now leads us back to Referee Bernstein's decision in Docket 127. The issue before him was stated as follows:

            QUESTION:


            1. Shall affected employees who have insufficient

            seniority to obtain and retain a regular assignment in

            the coordinated operation be paid a Section 6 Dis

            placement Allowance in those protective period months

            in which they perform-service?


            2. If the answer to question (1) is in the affirma

            tive, shall the Carrier now be required to pay

            Claimants Carson Bell; --- Z. F. Burford; --

            John Luke; Sam Miles; C. J. Peppers; --- a displacement

In the Findings

 the application

 allowance for the month of January, 1962, and each subsequent month thereafter in which they perform service in the protective period, rather than a combination displacement-coordination allowance which is now being paid.

 the following paragraph is crucial herein:

 The organization claims that in any month in which the furloughed employees performed extra work they were entitled to Section 6 allowances for the entire month. However, the Carrier interprets Section 7 (h) to mean that the Section 6 and Section 7 allowances are to be prorated and a combination of both paid depending upon the proportion of the working days of the month in which the employee was working and not working.

 Additional comments are included in the Findings, concerning of days or months. Finally,

 (T)he grossness of these categories argues against their being subdivided into fractions measured in days. Given the terminology and the rough justice the allowances were to perform, it seems quite unlikely that there was any intention that allowances be made on a daily basis.

 It follows, therefore, that Claimants are not eligible for health and welfare benefits in those months when they did not perform servico. Furthermore, the two disputed questions initially posed, i.e., whether these Claimants received health and welfare benefits during the period they performed compensated service, as well as whether under Section 8, of the WJP Agreement, other employees on his home road, in active service or on furlough, are accorded these benefits, are remanded to the property for disposition consistent with the Opinion.

 AWARD:

 The answer to Questions 1 and 2 is in the negative. However, the two factual issues are remanded to the property for disposition per Opinion.

 Dated: Washington, D.C.
 July 24, 1970

 gray
 Neutral Member

 ~~v

 vow

 J. J. i