PARTIES ) Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks, Freight
 TO ) Handlers,Express and Station Employes
 DISPUTE ) and
 The Central Railroad Company of New Jersey (R.D. Timpany, Trustee)
 QUESTIONS (1) Did the Carrier violate the terms of the February 7, 1965
 AT ISSUE: National Agreement, particularly Articles I and IV thereof,
 beginning on April 1, 1972, when it failed and refused to retain
 the following named employees in service subject to compensation as
 provided in the Agreement:

                  C. Bimler L. Kehoe

                  C. P. Long S. Fedorcha

                  T. E. Seiple M. Bench

                  M. E. Burda J. Leinhard

                  J. Puschock n. Searfoss

                  H. Richards J. J. Doll

                  L. Hannis D. J. Boyle

                  L. Hartranft J. Harting

                  R. Hummel J. Nagle

                  'I. C. Hess II. McGovern

                  M. Deppe T. B. James

                  G. Wetzel J. Devitt

                  J. Lenahan J. Modrovsky

                  E. Purcell E. Trojanowski

                  W. T. Czapp J. Cooney

                  J. McKernan J. Kohut

                  C. E. LeVan 'J. Smith

                  P. Campbell D. Lindenmuth

                  h. Boyle J. J. Bulkely, Sr.

                  '?. Dutt Fred Signarovitz


            (2) 1e rier be required to restore each of the

            above ~aimant to service, and shall the Carrier also be

            req tro make pa nt to each of the above Claimants the

            be _presV,*rbed Article IV, Section 1 or Section 2

            ( ever,;~s~appl le) beginning, with April 1, 1.972, and

            c nuing'tintil sy time as they are individually retired,

            -r

            s harVd for or otherwise removed by attrition?

                                    ,.·.ar·? '-o. 374

                                    ';ase ':c. CL-54__


n_~1-·7n;;
                                                        Iwo


eased upon our analysis of this record ore of the I~unc:anental
 OF LOATLn: issues involved in this matter relates to the interpretation
 of the I.C.C. Order in Finance Docket 26659. Therefore, it is
 our considered opinion that this issue should be referred by the parties im
 mediately to the I.C.C. for interpretation of the I.C.C. Order respecting the
 scope of employee protective benefits allowed in Finance Docket 26659. Such
 interpretation shall be furnished promptly to the Committee.

 Accordingly, this docket is held in abeyance by this Committee and the matter is remanded to the property without prejudice to the position of either party.

                          AWARD


The dispute is remanded to the parties in accordance with the Opinion.

                        Mu ray M. Rohm

                        utral Member


                                  R


                                v /,9


Dated: Washington, D.C.
      January 11, 1974 )