NATIONAL RAILWAY LABOR CONFERENCE
1225 CONNECTICUT AVENUE, N.W., WASHINGTON, 0. C. 70016/AREA CODE: 707-659-9170





Mr. Milton Friedman
 850 Seventh 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. 305 to 309 inclusive, dated July 26, 1972, rendered by Special Board of Adjustment No. 605.

c.c..

 Messrs. G. E. Leighty (10)
 C. L. Dennis (2)
 C. J. Chamberlain (2)
 M. B. Frye
 H. C. Crotty
 ~/J. J. Berta
 S. Z. Placksin (2) -
 R. W. Smith
 T. A. Tracy (3)
 W. S. Macgill
 M. E. Parks
 J. E. Carlisle
 W. F. Euker
 T. F. Strunck

                                AWARD NO. 3os

                                Case No. TCU-44-E


          SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT NO. 605


PARTIES ) Lehigh Valley Railroad Company
 TO THE ) and
 DISPUTE ) T-C Division, BRAC

 QUESTIONS
 AT ISSUE: (1) Did Carrier violate Article IV, Sec
 tion 2 of the February 7, 1965 Agree
 ment when it removed E. Y. Anderson
 from the protected list of employees
 and refused to compensate Mr. Anderson
 at his protected rate?

                (2) Shall Carrier be required to reinstate Mr. Anderson as a protected employee under the February 7, 1965 Agreement and compensate him for all losses incurred since September 20, 1968.


OPINION OF BOARD: The Claimant, a regularly assigned Towerman at Athens
 Tower, had his position abolished on July 24, 1968 and thereafter he reverted to the extra list which protected a position at Sayre Telegraph Office, Sayre, Pa., one day per week. Claimant posted at this point for several weeks and effective September 6, 1968 he was qualified for the position.

 The record submitted to us indicates that on September 12 and September 19, Carrier had need for Claimant but was unable to contact him because of his failure either to furnish a telephone number or to contact Carrier to ascertain if extra work existed. The Claimant was in the process of moving his residence from Naples, N.Y. to Tunkhannock, Pa.

 On the basis of these facts, Carrier contends that claimant "engaged in a consistent pattern of conduct" which justifies the removal of his protection under Article II, of the February 7, 1965 Agreement.
                                AWARD NO. 3 o s 1400

                                Case No. TCU-44-E


The Organization asserts that at the very most Article IV only calls for "any time lost on account of voluntary absences" and the facts herein do not impose the drastic penalty of loss of protection under Article II.

 In view of Awards 16, 126, 185 (Case No. 5), 212 and 292, in the absence of a consistent pattern of refusal to answer calls, an employee does not lose his protected status.

 The specific answer to Question No. 1 is that Carrier did not violate Article IV, when it suspended Claimant's protective benefits for the period of the voluntary absence September 12 to September 19. However, it had no right to terminate Claimant's protective benefits. In response to Question No. 2, Claimant is entitled to receive his protected rate since September 20, 1968 which is the extent of this committee's authority under the February 7, 1965 Agreement.

                        AWARD


QUB6LionE No. 1 and 2 are answered in accordance with the opinion.

                          i/ ~'~- < < c r1 L L-'~ Milton Friedman Neutral Member


Dated: July .Z6, 1972
      Washington, D. C.


-2- rr