H. C. CROTTY B. L. $ORAHA
 PRESIDENT .

BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY ]EMPLOYES

AFFILIATED WITH THE A. F.L.-C.I.G. AND C.L.C.

GRAND LODGE



OFFICE OF

PRESIDENT



                          March 24, 1972 Awards 284-291


Mr. J. J. Berta
 704-06 Consumers Building
 220 South State Street
 Chicago, Illinois 60604

 Dear Sir and Brother:

          For your information, I enclose a copy


of Awards No. 284 through 291, rendered by Referee

 Friedman.

          With best wishes, I am


                      Sincerely and fraternally yours,


                                  . ~/~


                              President


Enclosure

 W

    ~r

NATIONAL RAILWAY LABOR CONFERENCE

 1275 CONNECTICUT AVENUE, N.W.. WASHINGTON, D. C. 10076/AREA CODE: 202-659.9770

 WILLIAM H E>E\II'S1'1'. Ch a:rtnan AI. E. PARKS, \'rcc Clum:an \G. S. AIACGILL, Assistant ._ Chairman
 JAMES A. WILCOX, General Counsel 11. E. GREEK, U,rec~r>r of Rcs<.rch J. F. (iRII HIV. AdIministrativ: Sttret.rl

                          March 20, 1972


Mr. Milton Friedman
 850 - 7th Avenue
 New York, New York 10019

 Dr. Murray M. Rohman
 Professor of Industrial Relations
 Texas Christian University
 Fort Worth, Texas 76129

 Mr. Nicholas H. Zumas
 1225 - 19th Street, N. W.
 Washington, D. C. 20036

 Gentlemen:

 This will supplement our previous letters with which we forwarded to you copies of Awards of Special Board of Adjustment No. 605 established by Article vii of the February 7, 1965 Agreement.

 There are attached copies of Awards Nos. 284 to 291 inclusive, dated march 17, 1972, rendered by Special Board of Adjustment No. 605.

                          Yours very truly,


                                            ·.


                              74


cc: Messrs.
 G. E. Leighty
 C. L. Dennis (2)
 F. T. Lynch (2)
 C. J. Chamberlain (2)
 M. B. Frye
 H~ C. Crotty
 Ala. J. Berta
 S. Z. Placksin (2)
 R. W. Smith
 T. A. Tracy (3)
 W. S. Mac gill
 M. E. Parks
 J. E. Carlisle
      W. F. Euker _

      T. F. Strunck

                                    AWARD No. a91/

                                    Case No. TCU-40-E


            SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT NO. 605


PARTIES ) PENN CENTRAL COMPANY
 TO THE ) and
 DISPUTE ) TRANSPORTATION-COMMUNICATION EMPLOYEES UNION

 QUESTIONS
 AT ISSUE: 1. Did-Carrier violate the Agreement when
 it abolished the position of Agent at
 Eldred, Pennsylvania and combined the
 work of said position with that of Super
 visory Agent at Port Allegheny, Pennsylvania
 without first following the procedure set
 forth in Article III, Sections 1 and 2 or 3?

              2. If the answer to the above is in the affirmative, shall Carrier be required to negotiate an implementing agreement with the Organization to provide for the desired change, or, in the alternative, to restore each position to the status existing prior to the time Carrier abolished the position at Eldred and combined the work thereof with that of the Supervisory Agent at Port Allegheny?


OPINION
 OF BOARD: On the property the claim which was progressed con
 tended that Carrier effected a change in the duties
 of the Agent's position at Port Allegheny, sought
 negotiations to increase the rate of the position, and asked
 that a change be made in the position's job requirements. No
 claim had been introduced alleging a violation of the February
 7 Agreement. The only reference to which the organization points
 is a statement in Carrier's letter of July 26, 1967, concerning
 the organization's "verbal contention that the February 7, 1965,
 Agreement, and its interpretations, required an agreement before
 the action here in dispute could be taken..."

                                      AWARD NO. a

                                      Case No. TCU-40-E


This claim was progressed as a violation of the schedule agreement throughout, not as a violation of the February 7 Agreement. It belongs solely before the Third Division and not before this committee at all, in the absence of a specific claim citing a specific violation of a specific provision of the February 7 Agreement. Claims concerning increases in rates of pay and/or changes in job duties are not within the province of the Disputes Committee. In view of the way the claim has been handled, no evidence has been adduced on the property to support the allegation that Carrier violated the February 7 Agreement.

                        A W A R D


The answer to Question No. 1 is No; there has been
 no violation of the February 7, 1965 Agreement. _

                          Milton Friedman

                          Neutral Member


Dated: Washington, D . C.
        March /7, 1972