NATIONAL RAILWAY LABOR CONFERENCE
1775 CONNECTICUT AVENUE, N.W., WASHINGTON, 0. C. 70036/AREA CODE: 107-659-93711
WILLIAM IJ. DEMPSEY, Chairman M. E. PARKS, VircCh.irman
 H. E. GREER. Director of Research J. F. CRIFFJN. Administrative Secretary D. P. LEE, CeneralCounsel


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

 Mr. Milton Friedman
 850 Seventh Avenue
 New York, New York 10019

 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 Award Nos. 361 to 363 inclusive, dated June 28, 1973 and Award No. 364 dated June 29, 1973 rendered by Special Board of Adjustment No. 605.

cc. Messrs. G. E. Leighty (10) o/
          C. L. Dennis (2),

          C. J. Chamberlain (2)

          M. B. Frye

          H~. C. Crotty

          ,iJ. J. Berta

          S. Z. Placksin (2)

          R. W. Smith

          T. A. Tracy (3)

          M. E. Parks

          J. E. Carlisle

          W. F. Euker

          T. F. Strunck

                                            Award No. 361

                                            Case No. CL-60-E


                SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT N0. 605


PARTIES) Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks,
 TO ) FreightHandlers, Express and Station Employes
 DISPUTE) and
 Western Maryland Railway Company
 QUESTIONS 1. Did the Carrier violate the provisions of Article IV,
 AT ISSUE: Section 1 of the Agreement when, commencing with January
 3, 1972, it refused to properly compensate Miss G. M.
 Suder, a "protected employe" under the terms of the
 February 7, 1965 Stabilization of Employment Agreement,
 the difference between her protected rate and the posi
 tion she now holds?
 2. If the answer to the above is in the affirmative,
 shall the Carrier now be required to compensate Miss G.
 M. Suder for the difference?

 OP=NI0N On October 1, 1964, Claimant was assigned to the position of
 OF BOARD: Stenographer and paid at the rate of $491.30 per month. Pur
 suant to Article IV, Section 1. of the February 7, 1965 Na
 tional Agreement, said rate became her protected rate, plus
 general increases; and on April 1, 1972, it amounted to $802.94. After various
 :;isplacements, Claimant exercised her seniority to a Clerk Stenographer position
 which paid the rate of $804.30, on April 1, 1972 -- higher than tier protected
 rate of $802.94. nevertheless, the Organization argues that Claimant's pro
 tected rate should be $814.32, as of April 1, 1972, predicated upon the Classi
 :icati.^. an.: Rva'_::ation Fund increase in conformity with Article IV of the
 Dec=m~e~. ?3, :96,' agreement.

 I-itially, we would continent on the Organization's vigorous Srgunaut before our Board =elative to the rate that Claimant was entitled when displaced from her :ief Clcrk position, at Cumberland. In our view, this issue is =:-ampaased wit.·,ia the Fcbzuary 7, 1965 letter, attached to the February 7, 1x65 National Ag same::-.. It is Our considered judgment that the Intent of the part_e3 theret) va,. :esigned to provide a protected rate based upon the posit?on hei. on )ctaber 1, 1964, plus general increases. Hence, we are in accord that on ~ctober `, 1964. Claimant was assigned to the position of Stenographer and the rate of -t::a= position is controlling herein.

 Is Claimant entitled to an additional 5c per hour pursuant to the Classificatiot, and Evaluation Fund? Previously, in Award Nos. 163 and 196, we had occasion. co thoroughly discourse on this phase; as well as our comments contained in Award No. 1, Issue A, involving an Arbitration between Transportaton-Communircation Division of BRAC and Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company. In that conte..t, we discussed the difference between a general wage increase and an inequity increase. We de-=m i: Juperfluous to quote our remarks therefrom, inasmuch as he g;St of oar ana--!sis was included in Award Nos, 163 and 196.
                                          Award No. 361

                                          Case No. CL-60-E


                          - 2 -


Moreover, predicated upon the April 2, 1968 Agreement, the parties herein entered into an Implementing Agreement dated June 7, 1968, whereby they determined the method for distribution of the Fund. Accordingly, varying amounts were allocated among selected positions, ranging from 34: per hour to 24.5C per hour. The distribution recognized inequities between positions -- both intra and inter -- of similar positions on other railroads and private industries.

 Furthermore, although the Organization concedes that 5C per hour from the Fund was applied to the position pursuant to the 1968 Agreement, it contends that such was a general increase. Why? Simply on the basis that after the varying amounts were distributed to different positions on the inequity premise, the surplus of 5C per hour was applied to the rate of the position. Hence, said 5C per hour was a general increase and not an inequity increase.

 Needless to say, we are convinced that the increases granted from the Classification and Evaluation Fund were designed and intended to be distributed for the purpose of eliminating inequities and not to "--unbalance established justified differentials and recognized relationships between classes of employees, thereby creating new inequities." Hence, it is our considered judgment that the Carrier did not violate the provisions of Article IV, Section 1 of the February 7, 1965 Agreement.

                        AWARD:


            The answer to the questions is in the negative.


R~

            r v c_ rv ~ ~-Y ,rlzL~wc~rr -

rJ-q Murray M. Rohman
 Neutral Member
 Dated:Washington, D. C.
 June 28, 1973