9225 CONNECTICUT AVENUE, N.W-, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20036/AREA CODE: 202-659-9320
Vd`H,LIAM H. DEMPSEY, Chairman H. E. GP EER, Vice Chaaman ROBERT BROWN, Vice Chairman
 W. L. BURNER, Jr, Director of Research J. F. GRIFFIN, Director of Labor Relations
 Y'b. P. LEE, General Counsel T. F. STRUNCK, Administrator of Disputes Committees


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

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

 Mr. Robert M, O'Brien
 73 Tremont Street
 Boston, Massachusetts 02108

 Gentlemen:

 There are attached two copies of Award No. 401, dated August 20, 1976, rendered by Sbecial Board of Adjustment ',,,To, 605 established by Article VII of the February 7, 1965 National Agreement.

cc: Chairman - FJnployes' National
      Conference Committee (10) -

    Messrs:

    R. :·l. Smith (5)

    C. L. Dennis (2 )

    . J. Neal (2 )

      S_ G. Bishop (2) ..

      C. J. Chamberlain (2)

      H, C. Crotty (2)

      M. B. Frye (2)

      W. Altus (2)

      J. Berta (2

      R. K. Quinn, Jr. (3)

      W. F. L)luer (2)

      T. F. Strunck (2)

                                        AWARD N0. 401

                                        Case No. H&RE-30-W


                SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT N0. 605


PARTIES) Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Bartenders
 TO ) International Union
 DISPUTE) and
 Union Pacific Railroad Company
 QUESTIONS (1) Whether the Employee J. R. Broadnax should be co:
 AT ISSUE: pensated at the protected rate determined by this Board
 pursuant to the answer to Question One, Award No. 382,
 Case No. H&RE-27-W, for the period November 22, 1974, for
 as long as he refused to report for an assignment cooking
 on a Union Pacific Outfit Kitchen Diner Car; and,
 (2) Whether, thereafter, the said employee should be com
 pensated at the aforesaid rate so determined in addition
 to whatever compensation he may have earned in any employ
 ment to which his seniority involved in Case No. H&RE-27-W
 did not attach.
 OPINION
 OF BOARD: Claimant was offered employment, on a temporary basis, as a
 Cook with Carrier's Outfit dining car service on November 22,
 1974. Claimant refused the service contending that the claim-
 ant's seniority as a Dining Car Chef did not embrace assignment as Outfit Car
 Cook. AB a consequence, Claimant was removed from service as a protected em
 ployee until January 20, 1975 when he returned to service and accepted employ
 ment as Outfit Car Cook.

 Claimant's status as a protected employee was previously established by Award No. 382 of this Board that held that Claimant was a protected employee and was covered under the provisions of Article IV, Section 2 of the February 7, 1965 Agreement.

 The question to be resolved is whether Carrier may require a protected employee to accept a temporary assignment in the same craft to which his seniority did not attach in order to maintain his protected status.

 Article II, Section 3, of the February .', 1965 Agreement provides in pertinent part:

      "When a protected employe is entitled to compensation under this Agreement, he may be used in accordance with existing seniority rules * * * for any other temporary assignments which do not require the crossing of craft lines."


            In Award No. 66 this Board held:

                                        AWARD N0. 401

                                        Case No. H&RE-30-W


                          - 2 -


      "Where it was intended that the crossing of craft lines could not take plane, it was stated succinctly. An intention to prohibit the crossing of seniority lines would have been as speeifically stated, if intended. Consequently, so long as there is no showing of a violation of 'existing seniority rules', it must be held that Carrief acted in accordance with the Agreement in its assignments on the days in question."


There is further reason to reject the organisation's contention: If, as the urgau:z:.ilun asserts, n t.:m,oaarc ssaignuait did not extend to any work not embraced by an employee's seniority, then the language "which do not require the creaming of craft lines" is mere surplusage and without meaning. The Board does not agree.

 Finally, the Organisation's reliance on Award No. 358 of this Board is misplaead. In that award we held that a Carrier could not require employees to work as cooks in its hotel-restaurant at Hand, Colorado because the existing seniority rules "Therefore encompass only those facilities that are specifically enumerated in the StoRe Rule." In the instant dispute, however, the agresrant classification of Cook" is common to Dining Care and Boarding Outfits.

                            e


            The answer to both questions is in the negative.


          .11, 414 /,0 -

          77A a ff C.

          Nichola . Z llmAa

          Neutral ber


Dated: Washington, D. C.
 August 20, 1976