SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT N0. 605
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 III, IV and V
thereof and the Interpretations of November 24, 1965, when
it made an extensive operational, organizational and tech
nological change effective April 1, 1972, and failed and
refused to enter into an appropriate implementing agreement
and also failed and refused to accord the affected employes
the benefits prescribed in the foregoing agreements, and
2. Shall the Carrier be required to enter into an appropriate
implementing agreement to provide for the transfer and use
of employes and allocation or rearrangement of forces made
necessary by the change, and
3. (a) Shall all employes named in Item 5 of this claim who
have fifteen or more years of employment relationship with
the Carrier and are requested or required to transfer to a
new point of employment requiring them to move their resi
dence be given an election of accepting a lump sum separa
tion allowance computed in accordance with the schedule set
forth in Section 9 of the Washington Job Protection Agree
ment, and
(b) Shall all other employes named in Item 5 of this claim,
including those who have fifteen or more years of employment
relationship with the Carrier and who do not elect to accept
a lump sum separation allowance be accorded the benefits con
tained in Sections 10 and 11 of the Washington Job Protection
Agreement and in addition receive a transfer allowance of
four hundred dollars ($400) and five (5) working days instead
of the "two (2) working days" provided in Section 10(a) of
the Washington Agreement, and
(c) In addition to the remuneration sought in Items 3(a)
and 3(b) hereof, shall the Carrier be required to make pay
ments of benefits prescribed in Article IV, Section 1 or
Section 2 (whichever is applicable) to all employes named
in Item 5 of this claim beginning with April 1, 1972 and con
tinuing until such time as they are individually retired,
discharged for cause or otherwise removed by natural attri
tion, and
4. (a) If it is determined that Carrier did not violate the
provisions _:f the February 7, 1965 Agreement and the Tntorpretations of ';ovember 24, 7.065, by its failure and refu.n1
Award No. 375
Case CL-65-L
to make an implementing agreement, then did Carrier violate
the provisions of the February 7, 1965 Agreement and the
Interpretations of November 24, 1965 when it failed and refused to accord the benefits contained in Section 10 of the
Washington Job Protection Agreement, including the granting
of five (5) working days instead of the "two (2) working
days" provided by Section 10(a) of the Washington Agreement
when it made an operational, organizational and technological
change effective April 1, 1972 and which change required the
employes named in Item 5 of this claim to change their place
of residence, and
(b) Shall the Carrier he required to accord the benefits
contained in Section 10 of the Washington Agreement and ac
cord five (5) working days instead of the "two (2) worling
days" provided by Section 10(a) of the Washington Agreement
to all employes named in Item 5 of this claim and who were
required to change their place of residence, and
(c) In addition to the remuneration claimed in Items 4(a)
and 4(b) above shall the Carrier be required to make payment
of the benefits prescribed in Article IV Section 1 or Section
2 (whichever is applicable) to all employes named in Item 5
of this claim beginning with April 1, 1972 and continuing
until such time as they are individually retired, discharged
for cause, or otherwise removed by natural attrition, and
5. The employes upon whose behalf this claim is filed and upon
whose behalf the remuneration above is sought are as follows:
(exhibit 6c)
Zone 3 Protected Employees
Group 1
1lelvin Ichter
Michael P. Kilcoyne
John W. Sterling
William H. Bowen
Charles W. Bimler
Anselm T. .lanuzzi
John C. McCauley
Clarence P. Long
Torrence Seiple
Michael E. Burda
Myron J. Dubee
Edward Bosha, .Jr.
Joseph T. lenahan
Rarl R. Pnrcell
Rocco Presto
William T. Czapp
Marion Wetherliold
C. Moyer
John McKernan
Hubert McGovern
H. A. Wenner
Joseph Puschock
Harold P. Richards
Lee Hannis
Lynn Hartranft
R. Hummel
Abner '.iggett
Millard C. Hess
Marcus E. Deppe
G. W. Wetzel
Marcus S. Coles
Leo P. Kehoe
Walter L. Bo··1e
John 1. Koliut
William J. smith
John C. Pammer
Rol.rrt L. Evans
Harold J. Herritv
Stephen Fedorcha
Michael Bench
Iwo
Award No. 375
Case No. CL-65-E
Clyde E. Levan
Thomas B. James
Paul B. Campbell
Joseph R. Devitt
Joseph Modrovsky
Carl Metz
Evelyn Loefflad
Jacques C. Buckley, Sr.
Edward Trojanowski
James R. Cooney
Group 2
John J. Harring
James H. Nagle
Frederick Signarovitz
Florence Dorsheimer
John M. °ygmunt
Donald Lindenmuth
Francis Signarovitz
Joseph B. Lienhard
Meritt K. Fry
Kenneth Searfoss
Joseph J. Doll
D. J. Boyle
Nicholas Dutt, Jr.
Jacques C. Buckley, Jr.
Gladys Eastman
Otto Shimaneck
Frank Haftle
William G. Young
OPINION Based upon our analysis of this record one of the fundamental
OF BOARD: 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 immediately 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.
Dated: Washington, D. C.
January 11, 1974
Murray M. Rohman
Neutral Member