PARTIES ) Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks,

    TO ) FreightHandlers, Express and Station Employes

    DISPUTE ) and

    Western Pacific Railroad Company

    QUESTIONS 1. Did the Carrier violate Article IV, Sections 1 and 3

    AT ISSUE: thereof, of the February 7, 1965 Agreement when they arbi

    trarily, without stated reason, disqualified Employe M.

    Bapatsicos from his position of Chief Clerk on August 31,

    1971, and failed and refused to thereafter compensate him

    at the rate thereof?

    2. If the answer to the above is in the affirmative,

    shall the Carrier now be required to compensate Mr.

    Bapatsicos at the applicable rate of said position begin

    ning with September 1, 1971 until violation is corrected?


O?INION Our analysis of the issue as framed by the Organization has con
 OF BOARD: vinced us that a resolution thereof pursuant to the February 7,
 1965 National Agreement, is dependent upon a determination of
 Claimant's qualifications. In this posture, we are aware, how
 ever, that pursuant to the February 7, 1965 Agreement, we are not empowered to
 determine Claimant's qualifications. Nonetheless, we have enunciated in prior
 decisions our authority to interpret the language of Article IV, Section 3
 thereof, specifically, what constitutes a "voluntary action" within the meaning
 of that provision under existing facts and circumstances. See our Award Nos.
 13 and 26.

    Therefore, it is our considered view, that the facts as contained herein are insufficient at this juncture to apply Article IV, Section 3. Consequently, we are convinced that the matter should be remanded to the property for a proper application of the aforestated principles which are evidenced herein.


· AWARD:

 The instant dispute is remanded to the property for the purpose of resolving Claimant's qualifications in the light of our opinion.
                        furray M. Roman

                        Neutral Member


Dated: Washington, '). C.
 June 29, 1973