1225 CONNECTICUT AVENUE, N.W., WASHINGTON, D. C.20036/AREA CODE: 202-669-9320
WILLIAM H. DEMPSEY, Chairman ROBERT BROWN, Vice Chairman
 W. L. BURNER, Jr., Director of Research 1. F. GRIFFIN, Director of Labor Relations
 D. P. LEE, General Counsel T. F. STRUNCK, Administrator of Disputes Committees


Mr. Robert M. O'Brien
 27 School Street
 Boston, .Massachusetts 02108

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

 Mr. Nicholas H. Zumas
 Suite 505
 1140 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
 Washington, D. C. 20036

 Gentlemen:

 There are attached copies of Award Nos. 405 to 409, inclusive, dated March 16-17, 1977, 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.
 Fred J. Kroll (2)
 E. J. Neal (2)
 S. G. Bishop (2)
 C. J. Chamberlain (2)
 H. C. Crotty (2)
 R. W. Smith (2)
 M. B. Frye (2)
 W /W. Altars (2)
 17 J. Berta (2)
 R. K. Quinn, Jr. (3)
 W. F. Euker
 T. F. Strunck
                                        AWARD NO. 4n5

                                        Case No. MW-56-W


                SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT NO. 605


PARTIES ) Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
 TO ) and
 DISPUTE ) St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Company
 QUESTIONS (1) Should the 12-cents-ner-hour increase in rates of
 AT ISSUE: pay effective July 1, 1968 provided in the National
 Agreement of May 17, 1968 be included in the compensa
 tion due protected employes A. E. Forrest and J. W.
 Cooley under Article IV of the February 7, 1965 Agree
 ment?
 and

            (2) Should A. E. Forrest and J. W. Cooley be made whole

            for any monetary loss each suffered as a result of the

            Carrier's refusal to include said increase as part of

            the claimants' respective protected rates?


OPINION
 OF BOARD: At the outset of this dispute, Carrier avers that Question No.
 2 propounded to this Board did not ripen into an issue on the
 property and hence, should be dismissed. An examination of
 the handling of this matter on the property indicates, on the contrary, that
 the questions of proper payment to Claimant and loss was indeed raised on the
 property.

 The issue in this dispute has been considered by this Board in several earlier awards: Awards 147, 163, 196, 210, 211, 361 and 371. This case is almost identical to those considered in Awards 147, 210 and 211 in that the same Organization is involved and similar contractual provisions and implementation. The problem presented by this case is the applicability of Article IV, Section 1 to the May 17, 1968 Agreement's classification and evaluation fund and its application. The issue herein surfaced some seven years following the Agreement of 1968 in Carrier's discovery, during a routine check, that the two Claimants were being paid erroneously, from its point of view.

 The reasoning represented in Awards 147, 210 and 211 is relevant to this dispute and is controlling. The rationale expressed in Awards 163, 196, 361 and 371 applies to a completely different application of a classification and evaluation fund, with a different Organization, with implementing agreements setting forth detailed new rates for individual positions, and may be clearly distinguished from this dispute. This Board, in Award 196 said that the increases to correct inequities, pursuant to the National Agreement and the Classification and Evaluation Fund, were allocated to selected
                                                      1


                                        AWARD N0. 405

                                        Case No. MW-56-W

                                                          y


                          _ 2 - low


positions only through the application of "job determination evaluation". We concur in that inequity increases cannot be construed to be general increases under Article IV. This dispute does not embrace an analagous situation. It does not include implementing agreements setting forth guidelines in the application of the fund but rather one specific sum to be granted to all employees in classifications covered by Reporting Divisions 29, 30, 32, 35, 38 and 40. The 1968 Agreement established 12C as the amount to be allocated to the positions in the various Reporting Divisions whereas in the BRAG situation, the increases from the fund varied from position to position in order to correct inequities.

 As had been stated previously (Award 147) a wage increase does not have to be uniform to be "general". If an entire classification's rate was increased uniformly and generally, the parties appear to have intended that Article IV include such increase in the guarantee. In Award 210, we held that an inequity adjustment given to part of the employees in a classification would not be included in the guarantee. Further:

            "But, if the 'normal rate' on October 1, 1964, were increased because everyone in the classification uniformly and generally received a wage increase, then it appears to be the kind of general increase contemplated by Article IV, Section 1. That it may not be given to every single classification in the craft does not detract from its character as a general increase to the classification."


Hence, in this dispute when Claimants received the l2C increase, the guarantee provided in Article IV was affected.

                        AWARD:


            The answer to the questions is yes.


                                          y ~ .~.ilxr;

                      I. M. Lieberman

                      Neutral Member'r_ ^~ '


Dated: Washington, D. C.
 March 16, 1977