Partisss Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and
 Steamship Clerks
 and
 The Long Island Rail. Road Company

 .Btatamt of C3.aines . *Claim .the System Comaittea thats . .

                1. The Carrier violated the established practices undeiatanding and rules of the Brotherhoods particulsr3y the Attrition Agreerent, Article IIIe Section Is Paragraph C.


                2. The Carrier shall pay Clark R. W. Howardy the correct total oonosnsation between the rate of his previous positiot and the rate of tie position he wan forced to take: This amount shall be adjusted retroactive from January 26s 1976 to the present date._


Discussions Article III, Section 1(o) of the Attrition Agree-

 asut ststesa

                "Each displacement allowance shoal. be a monthly alloranee determined by computing the total compensation received by the employe and his total time paid for during the last twelve (12) months in which he performed service iaweediately preceding the date of his displacement (such twelve (12) months being hereinafter referred to as the $test periods)s by dividing

                separately the total compensation end

                the total ttae paid for by twelve, thus producing the average monthly compensation and the average time paid for$, which shall be the minimum amounts used to guarantee the displaced employer and if his compensation

' PLS I 1060

                                                Award No.16 Case No. 22

                                - 2 w


                        in his current position is less in any mouth in which he performs work than

.-. the aforessid-average compensation he
 . . shall be paid the difference, lose ...
                        compensation. for any time lost on

                        account of voluntary absences ...n

                        The Claimant was displaced from his position by


        .a senior employee. ,Accordingly# he made application for a displace.

        ment allowance. Althangh he xss initially denied such an allowance,


    ,.. ::the1:er agreed to apply the nz~ , mks whole" provision

    meat to the Claimant.

    A dispute arose between the parties as to how

        . . this allowance vas to be computed, particularly with regard to the inclusion of the cost-of-living adjustments. The June 1)s, 1994 Agreement, in Article II dealing sH.th coat-of-living adjustments, states in part:

. "Every emloyee covered by this Agree-
    ment shall receive a Cost-of-Living

    Adjustment. The Cost-of-Living Adjust

    ment shall be determined in accordance

    with changes in the Consumer Price

    . Wnde7f....


        No pert of the Cost-of-Living Adjust. ment so granted shall be made part of the hourly or daily rate of pay during the term of this Agreement." The Claimant's base pay prior to his displacement was $309.88 from which the Carrier deducted $8.80 as the amount that should be added to the base pay ss the contractual cost-of-living adjustment. The Claimantfa test period earnings were then $101.08.


    . ...... The Claimant's current position pays him $290.19.


        However, in computing the displacement allowance the Carrier added the

PL6 t(AVti
 Award No. 16
 Case No. 22
 a 3
 $8.8o cost.of lidng adSustment,to his current salary,, for a total of
 $298.99: and thus computed his displacement allowance to be $3.09.
 The Claimant contended this was error in that the Carrier could not deduct the Cost-of·Ltving Adustment from his test or base earnings but nevertheless add-it to his current salary in oomlputina the :mount of his displacement alloxusce. He added that Artiole~Il"t of the Attrition Agreeaent states that the amploytete. monthly allowance shall be determined by computing the total compensation received in the last 12 months he performed service, and divided by 12 in order to ascertain his monthly guaranteed rate. The Claimant stated. his C01A was part of the total compensation he received during his test period.
 The Carrier stated that cost-of-living adjustments are not part of the basic wage and therefore it cannot be utilized in determiniag.the average monthly guaranteed rate or salary. The Carrier alluded to Article 2 of the June ltt# 19?4 Agreement which stated that no part of the COLA shall be made part of the hourly or daily rate of pay during the life of the Agreement. By including the COLA into the base salary of the Claimant, 'tale carrier contended it weld be giving COTA a permanency which it was not intended to have.

 Findings: The Board$ upon the whole record and all the
 evidences finds that the employee and Carrier are Employee and Carrier
 within the meaning of the R&Uvsy Labor Aotf that the Board has Nris
 dictiom over the dispute and that.the parties to the dispute were given
 due notice of the hearing thereon.
                                      P1_6 1 bbn

                                      Award No. 16

                                      Case No. 22


The Carrier correctly deducted the amount of the COLA received by the Claimant from his teat period earnings in determining the total amount of compensation received during aforesaid teat period. The June 1L, 1971 Agreement makes it clear that the COLA is not part of the employee's basic wage or salary structure,, but rather is a temporary or atop-gap measure to enable the smployes to cops with the present exigencies bf inflation. Under the provisions of the 1974 Agreements it could not be made part of the daily or hourly rate of pay. Consequently it was appropriate for the Carrier not to consider the cost-of-living adjustment received by the Claimant during his teat period'xs a part of his total com. peneation in computing his montbly guaranteed rate.
 However, it was error for the Carrier to add the cost-of-living adjustment to the current rate that the. Clainaat was mceiving in his present job. Just as it was improper for the Claimant to add his cost-of-living adjustment to his total compensation to determine his teat earnings$ so it is improper for the Carrier to add the cost.ofUviAg adjustment that the Claimant is receiving on his prevent job., to determine the amount of his displacement allowance. Since COLA has no element of permanency in the wage or salary structure, neither party may utilize it in do. tesvining the displacement allowance.
 Aecording3ys we find that if the Claimant's teat earnings are $301.08 per week and his current salary on his
                                        fLe I lobs

Award No. 16 Case No. 22 _5_ present job is $W90.19p the Claimant's weekly displacement allowance is $,10,89 and not the $1.09 as aalCU7.ated by the Carrier, The Claimant la therefore entitled to receive the difference between $10,89 and $1.09 for the period from January 26, 1976 to the present,

 Amardl Claim Sustained,'

 Orders The Carrier is direated to comply with the

                Award, on or before SJ, 1978.


    r.,


Y
 ace erg, h n and Neu en erg

        ee er Nr"'G an"h' cey, Carrier .tea "~er


AAj 91