SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT NO. 605


PARTIES ) Burlington Northern Inc.
 TO THE ) and
 DISPUTE ) Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks,
 Freight Handler, ^n.%aress and Station Employees

 QUESTIONS
 AT ISSUE: 1. Did the carrier violate the February 7,
 1965 Stabilization of Employment Agree
 ment when it refused to allow L. E. Myers
 benefits provided under Article V of said
 Agreement?

              2. Shall carrier be required to compensate L. E. Myers in the amount of $603.80?


OPINION
 OF BOARD: It is undisputed that Claimant was due $603.80 as
 moving expenses, transfer allowance and five-days'
 pay, pursuant to Article V of the February 7 Agree
 ment. However, Carrier contends that "several hundred dollars"
 should be offset against the amovxnt of the claim.

 Carrier had purchased Claimant's house because Claimant was required to move hio residence. He was nevertheless ~c~-roitred to occupy it for several weeks after the closing. According to Carries., various appurtenances of the property ware wrongfully removed or damaged during this period and the "several hundred dollars" are due it on that account.

 The issue presented by the Organization should no;, be before the Disputes Committee at all, Carrier argues, since the claim under Article V is not contested and the Offsel, sought f,s n®t a subject fox disposition by the Coomnittee; the msthod for resolving what Claimant may owe Carrier is specifically set forth in Section 11(d) of the Washington Agreement.
                              AWARD No. 3-;Z -1/

                              Case No. TC-BRAC-121-W

                              Redesignated CL-88-W(TC)


The authority of this committee is limited to interpreting an~9 applying the February 7 Agreement. Thus we can---and are obliged to--decidiL the issue of carxier's failure to coriply with its camar,i.t~·ent unde?~ Article V. But ese have no autb,ority to judge the propriety of an offset w:hl'·.ch does not arises under the AGr°;ament_
Consequently the claim is sustained. Since the propriety of Carrier's claimed offset is not acknowledged, ;it must be litigated in ano-tier forum. I+ is outside the jurisdiction of this Committee, &nd the .Award is without prejudice on this question.

                        A W A R D


            The Answer to the Questions is Yes, although this is without prejudice to Carrier's claim for monies due from Claimant.


                          Milton Friedman

                          Neutral Member


Dated: october /.~,, 1972
        Washington, D. C.


-2-