1225 CONNECTICUT AVENUE, N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20036/AREA CODE 202-659-9320

 WILLIAM H. DEMPSEY, Chairman H. E. GREER, Vice Chairman ROBERT BROWN, Vice Chairman
 W. L. BURNER, Jr., Director of Research J. F. GRIFFIN, Director of Labor Relations
 D. P. LEE, General Counsel T. F. STRUNCK, Administrator of Disputes Committees

Dr. Murray M. Rohman
 Professor of Industrial Relations
 Texas Christian University ~0 5
 Fort Worth, Texas 76129
 Mr. Nicholas H. Zumas
 1990 M Street, N. W.
 Washington, D. C. 20036
 Mr. Milton Friedman
 850 Seventh Avenue
 New York, New York 10019
 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. 380 to 384, inclusive,
 dated July 26, 1974 rendered by Special Board of Adjustment No. 605.
 Yours very truly,
 r

 cc. Chairman, Employees National Conference Committee (10)
 Messrs. C. L. Dennis (2)
 S. G. Bishop
 E. J. Neal
 R. W. Smith (2)
 C. J. Chamberlain (2)
 M. B. Frye (2)









                SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT N0. 605


PARTIES ) Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks,
 TO ) Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employees
 DISPUTE: ) and
 Cincinnati Union Terminal Company
 QUESTIONS
 AT ISSUE: ORGANIZATION'S QUESTIONS

              "(I) Did the Carrier violate the February 7, 1965 Stabilization of Employment Agreement when it removed the claimants listed herein from protected status and refused to pay them the protected rate due under the Agreement?


              (II) Shall Carrier be required to restore Claimants listed below to protected status with all rights unimpaired and to compensate them for all losses incurred from the date claim was filed plus losses as indicated prior to filing of continuing claim?


                  Helen M. Wilkins Robert Ivery

                  Leory Dinkins Clyde Keeton

                  Leo Elliot Lester A. Keith

                  Milton Harris Frank Kirk

                  Isaac Hill Joe Lafferty

                  Edward E. Lockett Everett E. Swope

                  James McIntyre Roosevelt Wade

                  Noonan Patton Johnnie Wallace

                  Franklin Redmon Willis Wilder

                  H. Robbins Robert Williams, Jr.

                  Charlie Saggus Sam Williams

                  Frank Stephens Hasten Wright

                  L. J. Stephens"


                            CARRIER'S QUESTIONS


              (I) Did the Organization have the right to reject Award

              No. 213 of the Special Board of Adjustment and refuse to

              enter into Agreement based on criteria in this Award?


              (II) Does the Organization have the right to ignore the corporate entity of The Cincinnati Union Terminal Company and insist that the volume of business of the owning trunk line Carriers is the controlling criteria for measuring the business of The Cincinnati Union Terminal Company?

                                        Award No. 380

                                        Case No. CL-53-E


                          -2-


              (III) Did Carrier comply with Article I, Section 3 of the February 7, 1965 Agreement and Question and Answer No. 4 of Interpretations when it applied the criteria set forth in Awards 156 and 213 of Special Board of Adjustment 605 following conference with and rejection by the organization?


              (IV) Did Claimants Robbins and Wade have protected status

              under Article I, Section 1 of the February 7, 1965 Agree

              ment?


              (V) Did Claimants lose their protection when they failed

              to exercise their seniority to available positions pur

              suant to Article II, Section 1?


              (VI) Did the named Claimants lose their protected status,

              when they failed to preserve their seniority rights under

              Paragraph 2 of Rule 17, and as a consequence were thereafter

              unable to exercise their seniority to positions available to

              them pursuant to Article II, Section 1, of the February 7,

              1965 Agreement?


OPINION The issues in this docket all involve application of Article
 OF BOARD: I, Section 3, of the February 7, 1965 Agreement. Subsequent
 to this docket being submitted to this Board, the parties,
 by agreement, submitted to final and binding arbitration the question of what
 substitute criteria should apply on the CUT for determining a decline in business,
 as well as other subsidiary matters. On May 2, 1974, the Arbitration Board ren
 dered its Award, setting forth the substitute criteria, specifying that its
 effective date shall be February 7, 1965, and, established certain other pro
 visions for applying the Agreement and Award. Therefore, this case is remanded
 to the parties for disposition in accordance with the Award and Agreement.

 It is understood that should the parties be unable to dispose of all questions at issue in this dispute on the basis of the Arbitration Board Award such remaining questions may be resubmitted to this Board for determination.

                          AWARD


              Claim remanded to the parties as per opinion.


                        urray M. ohman

                        Neutral Member

                        JUL 3 1 1974


Dated: Washington, D. C.
      / J

      July 26, 1974 J B ER-T