7226 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 Committee.


Dr. Murray M. Rohman
 Professor of Industrial
 Relations
 Texas Christian University
 Fort Worth, Texas 76129

 Mr. Irwin M. Lieberman
 91 Westover Avenue
 Stamford, Connecticut 06902

 Mr. Nicholas H. Zumas .
 1990 M Street, N. W.
 Washington, D. C. 20036

 Gentlemen:

 There are attached two copies of Awards Nos. 399 and 400, dated July 2, 1976, rendered by Special Board of Adjustment No. 605 established by Article VII of the February 7, 1965 National Agreement.
                                          ,


cc: Chairman - Employes' National
 Conference Committee (10)
 Messrs.
 C. L. Dennis (2)
 E. J. Neal (3)
 S. G. Bishop (4)
 C. J. Chamberlain (2)
 H. C. Crotty (2)
 R. W. Smith (2)
 M. B. Frye (2)
 W W. Altus (2)
 J. Berta (2)
 Lester Schoene Esquire (2)
 R. R. Quinn, Jr. (3)
 W. F. Euker
 T. F. Strunck
 AWARD N0. 399
 Case No. CL-106-W

 SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT N0. 605
PARTIES ) Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks,
 TO ) Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employes
 DISPUTE. j and
 Portland Terminal Railroad Company

 QUESTIONS Employees' Statement of Questions at Issue
 AT ISSUE:

 (1) Did the Carrier violate the terms of the National En;-
 ployment Stabilization Agreement of February 7, 1^65, be
 tween the parties when it refused to pay Mr. B. J. ?·)a'':.~ r,
 Mr. H. li. Pfaff, Mr. K. L. Mack, Ms. E. B. Yetter, Mr. R.
 E, Morris, and Mr. J. H. Harris their guarantee compensa
 tion for the months of April and/or May 1974?
 (2) Shall the Carrier be required to compensate as follows:

 B. J. Walker
 H. H. Pfaff
 K. L. Mack
 E. B. Yetter
 R. E. Morris
 J. H. Harris

April $327.74 April 340.47 April 331.60 April 396.91


April 333.06

 Carrier's Statement of Questions at Issue
1. Were Claimants' furloughs and concurrent suspensions of protected status in 1973 due to a "decline in business" as that term is defined and used in the February 7, 1965 Agreement?

 2. Are the claims of the Claimants in this Group P-3 properly before this Board or are they "dead" due to initial filing with the wrong officer and/or dead due to more than nine months having elapsed since the Carrier's highest officer first denied the claims of these particular Claimants in 1973?

 May $ 22.64
 May 609.12
 May 160.79
 May 333.06

 OPINION OF BOARD:

 Basic to the Organization's thrust, urged both on the property and before this Committee in its submission and vigorous argument, is the contention that the substitute formula Agreement

 is invalid because of the Amtrak takeover.

 In a letter to carrier's highest designated officer, dated January 18, 1975, the General Chairman alleged as follows, viz:
                                        AWARD N0. 399

                                        Case No. CL-106-W


                          - 2 -


      "The Local Agreement of February 3, 1966, as referred to by the Carrier is defective and not applicable. The criteria of that agreement consisted of total pieces of mail and baggage handled, volume of ticket sales and total number of freight and passenger car count. This criteria was nullified when baggage, tickets, mail and passenger car count were taken away from PTR employes. The validity of the local agreement was terminated."


The submission before our Board reaffirms this basic position in the following statement, viz:

      "Furthermore, it is the Employes' contention the Agreement of February 3, 1966, has been rendered null and void in that while baggage is handled and ticket sales are made at the Portland Terminal, such business is handled by Amtrak due to a transaction brought about by a Congressional Act. * * * the Agreement of February 3, 1966, has been rendered ineffective; and a new agreement must be negotiated."


While we are reluctant to dispose of a case on technical grounds, nonetheless, we are constrained to recognize that the position enunciated is fundamental to petitioner's case and has been emphasized by th Organization. Therefore, we have no alternative but to rule on this threshold question.

 We cannot avoid the elementary principle that our jurisdiction is strictly limited to interpreting the provisions of the February 7, 1965 Agreement. See Awards 105,,230 and Interpretation to Award 355. On its face, a resolution of the case as presented by the petitioner does not involve any interpretation of the February 7, 1965 Agreement. Our authority is circumscribed by said Agreement and does not extend to disputes involving Amtrak nor challenges to the validity of properly executed contracts and related matters. In connection with our conclusion, we would note the following comment of record as contained in a letter from the Organization, a portion of which is hereinafter quoted, viz:

      "We also file for protection under the provisions of the Washington Job Protection Agreement of May 1936, The Oklahoma Conditions of May 1944, Appendix C-1 (Amtrak), and the Burlington Conditions of November 1944."


Thus, in view of our comments and recognizing the limitations on our jurisdiction, we have no alternative but to dismiss this claim on jurisdictional grounds. Therefore, in this posture, we fail to find any necessity for responding to the Questions at Issue.
                              AWARD N0. 399

                              Case No. CL-106-W


                - 3 -


              AWARD:

Dismissed per Opinion.

 /"rray M. 'Ro n Neutral Member

 Dated: Washington, D. i
 July 2, 1976