7225 CONNECTICUT AVENUE, N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20035/AREA CODE: 202-559-9320
WILLIAM H. DEMPSEY, Chairman H. E. GREER, Via 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
 Fort Worth, Texas 76129

 Mr. Nicholas H. 2umas
 1990 M 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. 391 to 394, inclusive, dated May 21, 1975, rendered by Special Board of Adjustment No. 605.
                                          r

                                                1


                                -sL


cc: Chairman - Employes' National Conference Committee (10)
 Messrs.
 C. L. Dennis (2)
 E. J. Neat (3)
 S. G. Bishop (3)
 C. J. Chamberlain (2)
 H. C. Crotty (2)
 R. W. Smith (2)
 M. B. Frye (2)
 W. W. Altus (2)
 J. J. Berta (2)
 Lester Schoene Esquire (2)
 R. K. Quinn, Jr. (3)
 W. F. Euker
 T. F. Strunck
                                        AWARD N0. 391

                                        Case No. CL-66-E


                SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT N0. 605


PARTIES) Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks,
 TO THE ) Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employes
 DISPUTE ) and
 Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company
 QUESTION Are employes John J. Dolfus, Harry Wright, R. H. Rexroth,
 AT ISSUE: E. C. Seymour, M. C. Carroll, and C. M. Ryan entitled to
 all of the benefits and provisions of the National Employ
 ment Stabilization Agreement of February 7, 1965, on and
 after October 15, 1973?
 OPINION
 OF BOARD: On February 25, 1971, Claimants held regular assigned positions
 on the B&0; and were protected employees under the provisions
 of the February 7, 1965 National Agreement. Thereafter, pursuant to proper
 notice, an Agreement was consummated, effective June 4, 1973, consolidating
 the clerical and telegrapher work. Subsequently, on October 15, 1973, a Memo
 randum Agreement was executed coordinating the Casualty Prevention clerical
 work of the C&0 and B&0.

 Claimants were directly affected by said coordination, therefore, opted to take a clerical position in the coordinated operation designated as the C&0/B&0 Casualty Prevention Department. Furthermore, the clerical positions in the coordinated office were placed under the provisions of the BRAC Agreement on the C&0.

 Basic to the instant dispute is the June 4, 1973 Agreement, consolidating the clerical and telegrapher work. Included therein is Article XV, the pertinent portion of which is hereinafter quoted, to wit:

                        "Article XV


          "Effective


          This Agreement is effective June 4, 1973 and shall supersede all ether protective Agreements currently in effect on the Carrier applicable to employees subject to this Agreement including, but not limited to, the Agreement of June 3, 1963 and the Agreement of February 7, 1965 and interpretations and supplements thereto; except, that individuals who have already qualified for and are receiving compensation under previously existing protective Agreements shall continue to receive such protective compensation for the duration of the protective period for which originally qualified or until such time as such individuals acquire a regular

                          - 2 -


                                        AWARD N0. 391

                                        Case No. CL-66-E


          assignment producing compensation equal to, or higher than, their particular guarantee, whichever occurs first."


Thus, the Carrier contends that effective June 4, 1973, Claimants "were no longer covered by the February 7, 1965 Stabilization Agreement ..." We have carefully scrutinized all of the provisions of the June 4, 1973 Agreement. It is our considered view that on and after June 4, 1973, these Claimants were excluded from the protective benefits of the February 7, 1965 National Agreement. Moreover, while we recognize the significance of the previously quoted Article XV of the June 4, 1973 Agreement, we are cognizant also of that Section contained in said June 4, 1973 Agreement, entitled "Understanding", namely, that the Protective Agreement is alleged to be a recurring type protection; as well as the contents of Article XI - Arbitration.

                          AWARD


            The answer to the question is in the negative.


( urray M. Rohman
 Neutral Member

 Dated: Washington, D. C.
 May 21, 1975