· / J l
PECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT NO.
839
1,
AWARD N0. 1
PARTIES TO THE DISPUTE:
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers '
System Council No.,12 ,
International Association of Machinists and
.Aerospace Workers, District No. 22. -
Organizations
and ,
· Staten Island Rapid Transit,Operating Authority ' .
Carrier
- STATEMENT OF CLAIM
IBEtd
V.
. ' "l. That under the current Agreement, the Carrier im-
properly permitted other than Employees of the Carrier,
represented by the International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers, to perform Electrical Workers' work on the property
of the Staten Island Rapid Transit,Operating Authority.
2. That accordingly, the Electrical Workers employed
at Clifton Shop be compensated for each hour of work that was -
lost to their craft by other than one of their craft perform' ing the .cork reserved to them by the Agreement.
3.
That-the total hours of work involved be computed
at the overtime rate of pay and then divided as equally as
possible between the Electrical Workers employed by the
Carrier at their Clifton Shop." -
. IAM
'11.
That under the current Agreement, the Carrier improperly permitted other than limployccs of the Carricr, repre-
sented
by
the International Association of Rlachinists and _
Aerospace Workers, to perform Machinist work oil the property
of the Staten Island Rapid Transit Operatirig Authority.
-'< 2. ' That accordingly, the Machinists employed at Clifton
Shop be compensated for. each hour of work that was lost to,
their craft by other than one of their craft performing the .
work reserved to them by the Agreement.
' ~. .That the total
hours
Of. work involved be computed
at the overtime rate of pay and then divided as equally as
possible between the Machinists employed by the Carrier at
their Clifton Shop." .
STATT3MENT OF THE CASE.
' Fifty-taro (52)
R-44
cars were delivered to Carrier by
the St. Louis Car Division of General Steel Industries,'Inc.
. Thereafter, Road Car Inspectors discovered a growing
number of failures in support beams. St. Louis Car determined
that the undercarriage support system for converters, inverters,
' compressors and related air-conditioning components failed to
meet contractual requirements for structural integrity. Be
cause of the potential danger of derailment, St. Louis
Car
advised that corrective retro-fit work would be undertaken
immediately, without charge, under its basic warranty.
_ When Carrier discussed the matter with local officials _
' of the Organizations, in mid-August,
1974,
those officials
- disputed the propriety of Carrier's action; which continued _.
dispute included a threatened work stoppage, appeals to the
National Mediatiox: Board, etc. Finally, at approximately
-. 5:00 a.m., October 17,
1974,
the Organizations did walk-out -
- and established picket lines on Carrier's property,.
Upon application by Carrier, the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of New York issued.a Temporary
Restraining Order. Thereafter, the Caurt ordered that a
Special Board. of Adjustment be created, and the dispute be
submitted to said Board.
- The Court noted:
t'For the purposes of this stipulation, ii; is
understood that the dispute herein is a minor dispute.
concerning whether the performance of warranty work by
the St. Louis Car Co. on SIRTOA property violates the
Agreement of September 25,
1961E
and the Supplementary
Agreements of March
27
and March
28, 1974
between the
parties hereto."
The National Mediation Board appointed the undersigned
Neutral to this Board for the purpose of "...resolving the
question of whether the performance of warranty work ...on
SIRTOA property violates..." the Agreements.
2.
OPINION OF BOARD
Tlie record before us refers to (1) "warranty" work,
(2) work which was incidental to the "warranty" work,
(3)
"warranty" and
incidental work
being performed on Carrier's
property, and, of course, (4) damages, if a violation is
;round.
We note, at the outset,, that St. Louis Car's performance
of warranty work, per se, is not before us as an alleged
violation. .
At Page
3
of the IBEIT Submission, we note:
"The Carrier has taken the position that the work
is ;'warranty work"; we told them that we are not
claiming the warranty work which was the structural
support systems..."
. Moreover, at Page
5
of the IAM Submission, we note: '
"Significantly, neither the IAD3 nor the other union's
representative have claimed or are claiming now that
they should .perform the warranty work although such
. work would be.violative of the contract if performed.
on SIRTOA's property by persons out::idc the bargain
ing unit."
' The Organizations do, however, claim work incidental to
_ the -warranty work For instance, the IAM states:
. ', :'Rather, the IAM claims the right to perform work
. such as' dismantling which must first be performed.
before the parts under warranty may be repaired.11
'Flie "IBELV states:
"We do claim the Electrical work which was necessary
. for the warranty work to be performed."
Carrier argues that St. Louis Car insisted that it perform all work incidental to the warranty work as part of its
guarantee, and that no charge was, made for that work.' While
the record is not entirely clear'in'this regard, it appears
that this insistance was brought to the attention of the
Organizations in the early stages of the dispute. Among
other defenses, Carrier notes that it is not required to
"bifurcate", or minutely subdivide the work (see Award No.
109, Special Board No.
570)9
and that cost factors .are a
basis for contracting of work under,Article II, Section 1(5)
of the September 25, 19611 Agreement.
If this Board -were confined solely to the 19611 Agreement,
it could concede that Carrier's defenses are persuasive, especially under. Article II, Section 1(5) mentioned above. But,
this Board's review is not so confined. We may not avoid a
thorough review of the March
27, 1974
(IBEW) and March
28, 1974
(IA Agreements. Paragraph
3
states:
' "No outside contractors or other persons except em
ployces of SIRTOA represented by the /IBLW'//IAM/ shall
pel~form any /electrical //machinists/ work, including
work connected with the component parts, listed above,
on the property of SIRTOA." .
The Organizations urge that even though Carrier may have
been entitled to have certain warranty work performed by outside concerns, the above cited language precludes the performance of the warranty work, or the incidental work, on the
property of Carrier.
Carrier urges that its action was proper because St. Louis
Car is not an outside contractor (because it was performing
warranty work)
and that
there has not been a showing that the _
work. in question. was "electrical" work or "machinist" work. We
do not concur with Carrier's position.
Although the March, 19711 Agreements recite that "all other"
provisions of the 19611 Agreement remain in effect, this Board
concludes that Paragraph
3
contains a broad prohibition against
outside contractors and other persons performing work on the
property. For instance, we note that the March,
1974
Agreements allow
contracting out
concerning certain component parts.
Thereafter, Paragraph
3
specifically precludes work concerning those same component parts from being pcrforaied by outside
concerns or other persons, on Carrier's property. Thus, we do
not agree with Carrier's contention that St. Louis Car is not
an "outside contractor" as that term is used in the Agreement,
merely because it is performing warranty work. Even if St.'
Louis Car is not an "outside contractor", its employees would
certainly appear to be "other persons a-xcept employees of SIRTOA
represented..." by the Organizations. We conclude that the
cited language, by its own terms, restricted Carrier from having
certain work performed on its property; although that.worlc could
be performed away from the property:
Ire do not minimize Carrier's contention that the Organizations must show that the work in question is electrical and
machinist 'work. But, as we review the specific provisions of
the two March,
1974
Agreements, and the general classification
rules, we are unable to conclude that the work performed by St.
Louis Car is not electrical and machinist work, in part, even
though there has not been a lengthy history of work in this
regard.
` Finally, we turn to the question of damages. The United
States District Court for the Eastern District of New York
ordered: '
"That the Board is specifically authorized,
should it so decide, to provide a remedy for the
alleged breach of the collective bargaining agree-
. ment to either party whose position it sustains. -
The'remedy may
include, but not be limited to,
monetary damages to the prevailing party should
the majority of the Board so decide."
Carrier has demonstrated that all employees were fully
employed during the material period, and urges that since no
employee was adversely effected, no award of damages is appropriate. The Organizations counter by arguing that numerous
Awards have adhered to the "loss of work opportunity" concept,
and have awarded damages even though the employees were fully
.' employed. The undersigned Neutral served as Referee with the
Third Division of the National Railroad Adjustment Board in
Award
19899.
That Award traced much of the history of damage
awards in the Railroad Industry, and (citing Brotherhood of
_Rai.lroad ~igna7.men v. Southern Railway Company, 3130 F 2d 59
.,, (CA 11?) concluded that damages are properly awarded notwithstanding a "full employment" situation, as long as the claim
is not speculative. .
. However, this Board is not inclined to award damages
concerning the "warranty" work perfcx;::_d on SIRTQA' trope--ty.
While we have found that Paragraph
3
of the March, 1974 Agree
ments pr9hibited Carrier from having that work performed on
the property; nonetheless, the record and the Submissions to
this Board are singularly clear that such a claim for monetary
damages was never presented to the Carrier =while the matter .
. was handled on the property. - As cited above, the IBEW states,
"...We told them that
-,,To
are not claiming the warranty work."
Moreover, although IAM noted that performance of warranty
work would be violative of the contract if performed on SIRTOA's
property, that conclusion was immediately preceded by the state
meat, " ..neither the IAM nor the other union's representative
have claimed or are claiming now that they should perform war
ranty work."
'Thus, under this record, we will not award damages concerning the performance of warranty.work. It should be noted
that this Award is a case of first impression concerning the
prohibitions of Paragraph
3
of the March, 1971, Agreements and
is, of course, limited to the record before the Board. Of
necessi.t~>, zse may not attempt to outline a precedcntial analysis concerning future records in disputes not now before us.
A damage award concerning "incidental" work performed on
SIRTOA's property is not similarly controlled. In that regard,
·Su-caeau ,To
aoz-tou
anp panraoax
°papuawe se '° :~oV xoqv,,l AsztTzeg acjj jo Sutueaw atll
uztl4z,kl saaLoTdwg pue .za-exseo axe u-caxaLl sat:~xed ally
<a~.nds;cp azll do uo-c4o-cpsrxnC serf pxsog szzly
,., , ... , : rein spuTJ
pxvog s-czl4
6
pxooax axr:Jua atl:~
jo uoz4exapzsuoo
e uodjy
·anp sq_unowe atl:~ Sutuxaouoo saz~.xed acl!j uaail:pq so ~pcZ
-sZp .Cue anTosox off.
uo-c.~.oipszxnC-
uze,.ax TTetjs pxeog sILI:~ pue
"anp s~.unowe otjzoads atl:~ jo uo-r:~euruaxa:~ap a ,zoj saxlsed aLIq.
off.
papucu:ax aq M·1 xayew ao= . °aAoqe passnoszp se txtoa lC:Iup,rxphl
off. Te:juaptou-c
SLLOrI
$u-cwxo;fxod aTzzjet xeo slnoZ ·:~g 1Cq pawns
-uoo awT~. TTe
.zoj
sa~L.z
otut:~.
:ItISres4s .Ced TTe7Is .zar.z.zeo
Jezl2
4170a.%3 atl~ O:j, j)aLt2L~.S22S
S'C
titTeTO atlj °snLI,L °pxooax
sttlf~
xapun
pxL'.sLv .itL' iIOnS
,XOJ.'
StSL'q
OiI p'U2j
a,%1 ~Sa07CL':j,SwhO..LTO T.iTL'~.,ZaO xaplln
a:Iet.zdoxdde aq few sa Iex
awz:Isano :1Q
saSeutep
JO
pxerle UL. aT-ctllq
°sq·zed :Iuauodwoo acl!j
JO
Su;coeTda·z pue Tenowax
Z,If~yl
pa-4.oau
-uoa zIxotl se gons lpawxoj.zad aq
off. Slxoal
fC~.uexxert 'aty:~
,zoo
.Ixes
-saoau sea tloLZIeI
31-Tan
q.s-ciz-culoeji ao Slxorl Ieo'cx~.oaTg Slam. cxaLl_j2x
Inq W Ixoal 1C:~LLex·znF1 :I23-os~.a,z aLI:~ o1pa:IeTax .CT4oaxzp ~.ou setl
I;orllat zi?:) --rno-I °:Ig Aq :qxohl jo aouewxojxad aLIq. off. sale-rax
4I se lTa=os tuyeZo atl:~ uZeI.sns TTiel
a7.1
°fT.Vutpxoaov
' p°aDxn03
xaLI:~OUe
LI~.Tl·1
jova
~U00
SU'L:j.OTT3.U00
L
042t'.L
~IL"C
TaZLTa Kq'tE0'C~pL'2
-iueSxo xoqeT e o I suoz:~.rS-cTqo TenjoexZuoo sZt a:~e~3o,xqe :Iou..Ssw
,za-cxse~ a 7etl:I ~ patlsiTde:Isa TTant s-z IT ~ 4uon.a ,Cue u1:
°squauod
-moo pue sxosso.zdwoo £-II aoeTdox
puce,
allowas plnool saa~Coldwa
s,~= 4t'tI~ IL'VT LIB-xrt paa,z5e xatxxeo lozui pasa~.ua sea ~.uaut
-0211Uxxe r%UL,_T_xen atl:~ za4de Suol ~ aTdwolo xod
·~uzpue:~sxopun
Zetp (uT paoso2nbor'xo ' jo a.SpaTmousl pall xo) o:I I,;.xed g
sej.l uoz~.rzzueSxp IotlI.TO ~.etj:I 4so2sns off. pxooax do 2u-ctl:Iooe
I-5a1nToscje
s2
axatly ·,zeo
sinoZ._·~S
j)ue ,zazx.ze3
atl:~ uaaEt:A.
-oq svm 3uTpuv?4s_Topun ao q.uatuoa,z2c _jetl:~ :~ng °slxonl azl:~
U-C
a4e<IzozZxecj off. soa4oTctwo
sit uvt;:~ ,rotr:~o I.koT-Ev o:~ posnj:ax xeo
sinoZ -IS Ietll UoTlaosst, ScI:~ 30 Tnjpn-rurczn :jou axe a,R1
·pxeog szg:I o:I 9111-CL-TO pees
panuz1.uoo
anetl pue
ouy~, a
U-C
)Ixoat letl:~ pauyeTo suo24ezlue2xp oily.
AWARD'
1. Carrier violated the March 27 and March 28,
1974
Agreements when it permitted individuals,
other than employees of the Carrier represented
by the OrganizELtions, to perform electrical work
.and machinist work on the property of Carrier.
2. Claims_for monetary damages are denied insofar
as they relate to "warranty" work performed on'
the property of Carrier.
3.
Claims for monetary damages, at the straight
time rate, are sustained insofar as they relate
to electrical and machinist work, incidental to
'the warranty work, performed on the property of.
the Carrier, as discussed in the Opinion of the
Board, above. -
'174
1,
/" FfL",
I ~' e
oseph
t\.
Sickles
/Neutral Member -
(1
CJ9seph ). Burns, Jr.
Organization Member
(Concur) (-Dissent) No. 1
(Concur)
(Dissent)
No. 2
(Concur) (-Dissent-) No.
3
B. T. Horsley
Carrier Member
(Crrr-xmLv) (Dissent) No. 1
(Concur)
(Bi.-s-serib)
No. 2
CyoJyj~)
(Dissent) No.
3
H. I' . Di. Braidwood
Carrier Member
(Gonc-ur) (Dissent) No. 1'.·
(Concur) (.I33seexrt) No. 2
(
wn=~°~)
'(Dissent) No.
3
' Spartaco Nazzuli
(Ok-ganization Member
(Concur) (D2-ssen-f) No. 1
(Concur) (-i)Y:;;=...W rt) No. 2
(Concur) (.Disserzt--) No-
3
- DEc>;rtBER
5, 1974
SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT NO.
839
' SLYPPLEMENT TO AWARD N0. 1
I s~s
PARTIES TO THE DISPUTE:
International Brotherhood of Electrical
workasvr
3
':'
System Council No. 12',
International Association of Machinists and
' Aerospace Workers, District No. 22
- - Organizations
. and
Staten Island Rapid Transit Operating Authority
- . Carrier
' STATEDM1\TT OF CASE
On December 5, 1974,
Special Board of Adjustment No. _
$39
issued its OPINION, FINDINGS and AtaRDS concerning the
claims submitted to it, and heard,. on November 18, 1974.
In the December
511974
OPINION and AWARD, the Board -
. noted that it had been established pursuant to an Order of
the United States District Court for the Eastern District '
of New York, and that said Court had stated:
- .!!That the,Board.is,specifically anthorized,
should it so decide, to provide a remedy for the
alleged breach of the collective bargaining agree- -
ment to either party whose position it sustains.
The remedy may include, but not be.limited to, -
monetary damages to the prevailing party should
the majority of the Board so decide."'
Special Board of Adjustment No.
839
determined, in
its December_5,-1974 OPINION, FINDINGS and AWARD:
..,., .,!'.Accordingly, we .will sustain the claim;
solely as it relates to the performance of work
by St.
Louis.
Car.whichwas not directly related
to,,the.r.etro-fit ,warranty work, but rather,, was
Electrical work or Machinist work -which eras
necessary for tile warranty work to be performed,
such as work connected with removal and replacing
of the component parts. While an award of damages
at overtime rates may be appropriate under certain
circumstances, 'we find no basis for such an Award
under this record." Thus, the claim is sustained
to the extent that Carriipr shall pay straight time
- rates for all time consumed by St. Louis Car while
performing work incidental to warranty work, as
discussed above. The matt., will. be remanded to
the parties for a deVerenination of the specific
amounts duct' and this Board shall retain JUri.S
diction to resolve aril- dis ~~ites between ttie parties
concerning the amounts due." underscoring supplied)
Finally, the December
5, 1974
AWARD stated:
1°1. Carrier violated the March
27
and March
28, -
1974
Agreements when it permitted individuals,
other than employees of-the Carrier represented
- by the Organizations, to perform electrical
- work and machinist work on the property of
Carrier. -
2. Claims for monetary damages are denied insofar
as they relate to "warranty" work performed on
the property of Carrier.
Claims for monetary damages,' at the straight
time rate, are sustained insofar as they relate
to electrical and machinist wor, incidental to
the warranty work, performed on the property of
the Carrier, as discussed in the Opinion of the
Board, above."
Subsequent to reasonable notification to all parties,
Special Board of Adjustment No.
839
reconvened on March 19,
1975
for the purpose of resolving a dispute between the
parties concerning specific monetary amounts due.
On April
15, 1975,
the Board met, in Executive Session,
to adopt this Supplement to Award No. 1.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
On 'December 16,
1974,
Counsel to the Organizations ad
vised the Board that Carrier refused to discuss any dispute
concerning amounts of damages due; and requested the Board
to reconvene, under its retained jurisdiction, to issue a
final Award, supplementing Award No. 1. (See Board Exhibit
#19 attached hereto). - -
2.
On December 20,
1971',
Carrier disputed this Board's
authority to take any further action. (See Board Exhibit
,//2, attached hereto).
On December
23, 1974,
Counsel to the Organizations renee,ed the request that the Board resolve the question of
amounts of damages due. (See Board Exhibit
;f3,
attached
hereto)..
On January
3, 1975,
the'Chairman of the Board concurred
that it uas " ..appropriate to reconvene the Board to con-.
sider the question of the specific amount of damages due."
(see Board Exhibit
m4,
attached hereto), and on February
7,
1975%
proposed that the Board reconvene at 1:00 p.m. on
March
199 3975.
(See Board Exhibit
#5,
attached .hereto).
No request for postponement or suggested alternate date
to reconvene was received by the Board.
The Board met at 1:00 p.m. on March 19,
1975,
at the
offices of the National Railroad Adjustment Board, Chicago,
Illinois. Although the Chairman and the Organization members
were present, no representative of the Carrier was present.
The
Board considered
written evidence (see Exhibits
#r69
;#7,
T/$
and
#9,
attached hereto) and oral statements, under oath,
concerning the question of damages due under,Award
No.
1 of,
this Special. Board
of
Adjustment.-,.
At the conclusion of the March
19, 1975
Hearing; the
Board members present agreed to meet in Executive Session,
on April
15, 1975,
at the offices of the National Mediation
Board, Washington, D. C. for purposes of adopting an Award
concerning damages. On March 21 , 1975, the Chairman of the
Board so advised the Carrier members of the Board, and in%rIted and urged their attendance. (See Attachment A).
By copy of April
7, 1975
letters to Carrier members, .
the Chairman of this Board became aware that the Carrier
members had been relieved from all further duties and responsibilities concerning this Board.. (See
Attachments B
and C).
The Board-met, in Executive Session, in Washington, D.C.
o'a April
15, 1975,
and adopted this Supplement to Award No.
3. cbf SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUST2NLENT .NO.
f339.
OPINION OF BOARD
The Order of*the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York, cited, in part, above, gave
this Board of Adjustment broad authority in fashioning a
remedy for breaches of the Agreements in question.
30
The Organizations save presented evidence of amounts
due within the dictates of Award No. 1 of this 13o:ird. That
evidence consisted of tabulating the number of man hosirs
consumed by St. Louis Car while' performing work incidental
to warr<zsnty work. .
The evidence fails to suggest that either
Organization
overstated the number of man hours involved, as their claims
are based upon the amounts of work in questibn. Moreover,
although Carrier had full knowledge of the proceedings, and
ample opportunity to present any evidence it so desired, it
failed to do so. Under those circumstances, we would dismiss
the Organization's evidence only if it were obviously inflated
or incredible. We are unable to make such
a
determination
under this record.
The IBEW has demonstrated
903
hours at the contractual
rate of
66.13
for a total of Five Thousand Five Hundred and
Thirty-five Dollars and thirty-nine cents
(65,535-39)...
The IAM has demonstrated
580
hours at the contractual,
rate of
,66.13
for a total of Three-Thousand Five Hundred and
Fii~ty-five Dollars and forty cents
(63,555·40).
The claims sought compensation for the employees at
Clifton Shop. The.If3EW has demonstrated that twenty-one (21)
employees were so employed during the applicable period. Those
employees are designated on Board Exhibit t`,`-8 (attached hereto)
as
Electricians and
Temporary Electricians. The IAM has demonstrated that eleven (11) employees here so employed during
the applicable period. Those employees-are designated on Board
Exhibit ,99 (attached hereto)-as Machinists and Temporary 1·lachinfists.
FINDINGS
Upon a consideration of the entire record, this Board
finds that:
This Board has jurisdiction of the dispute.'
The parties herein are Carrier and Employees
within
the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as amended.
All parties received due notice. of hearing.
4.
AWARD
1. That Carrier shall compensate the employees,
represented by the -IBC19, and employed at Clifton
Shop in the total amount of Five Thousand Five
Hundred and Thirty7five Dollars and thirty-nine
cents
(S5,535.39)
and that said compensation be
equally distributed to said employees as follows:
DICERO, J.
NAVARINO, V.
QHILDS, Ii.
MCGOWAN,
R.
TOLAS,
JR., C.
SCIIRUEFER, . R.
MCGOWAN, L. C.
DDIINO, C. P.
DISALVO, S.
BORSKI, W.
MCGOWAN, G.
TERRELL, G.
WALSH
I
T. P.
RATA, T..
SAWN, A .
2. That Carrier shall compensate the employees,
represented by the IAM, and employed at Clifton
Shop in the total amount of Three Thousand Five
Hundred and Fifty-five Dollars and'forty cents .
03,555.40)
and that said compensation be equally
distributed to said employees as follows:
3G9.o2
369.02
369.02
369.02
369.02
369.02
369.02
369.02
369.02
369.02
369.02
369.02
369.02
369.02
369.02
RAGGI, P.
F.
ERRICHIELLO, L.
BOLOGNIA, F.
RUSSO,
L.
FLYNN, W. 3.'
OCIDfAIvTN, Sd.
BISHOP, r1.
ABARNO, D. F,
rLnRSETTI, J.
RUTIGLL4N0, J.
355.5tt
355-Stt
355.5
355.5tr
355-5tr
355-54
355-5tf
355-5tt
355. 5tt
355-54
3.
That Carrier shall comply with this Award
within thirty (30) days of the date hereof.
a
r
J~,,~aj
n;~
E. T. Horsley (J seph J;. Burns; Jr.
Carrier Member ' i·g~tion Member
(Concur) (Dissent) '(Concur)
(-Dissent-)
I-F. F. Di. $raidwood ~ rtaco DJazzuli
Carrier Member rganization Member
(Concur) (Dissent) (Concur) (°_____~-~)
APRIL 15, 1975
6.
VLADECK,
ELIAS, VLADECK
F3
LEWIS, P. C.
COUNSELLORS AT LAW
1501 BROADWAY ·NEW
YORIt,
N. Y. 10036
STCPMCN C. VLAEIECA
SYLVAN H. CUAO
JUOITN P. VLAOEC
EVERETT C.LCWID
SNCLOON CNOELH.RO
THOMAS T. 0.1LRENNY
DEOORAM A.WATPRS
19oAlzD
f
AREA COOS 212
221-2550
Mr. Joseph A. Sickles
416 fIungerford Drive
Rockville, Maryland 20850
December 16, 1974
Re: IB09, System Council No. 12
IAMAW and SIRTOA Award No. 1
Dear Mr. Sickles:
IAA 5. ROOM.N5
' CUUN'lEL
The hoard issued by the System Board contained
the following statement in the last sentence of the
Board Opinion:
"The matter will be remanded to the parties
for a determination of the specific amounts
due, and this Board shall retain jurisdiction
to resolve any disputes between the parties
concerning the amounts due."
We have been..advised by counsel to the carrier
that it has no intention of discussing or resolving.
any dispute concerning the amounts due pursuant to
the ophion or the Award.
Under these circumstances, therefore, we request
that the Board reconvene as soon as possible with the
purpose of issuing a final Award supplementing Award
No..1, determining the amounts due to the employees
represented by the IAM and IBESI. The Award should state
that this represents the Board°s final judgment on this
matter.
Mr. Joseph A. Sickles -2-. 'December 16, 1974
We would appreciate it if the Board could
act
with reasonable dispatch so that the matter
may be concludede
. . "Very truly yours,
VLADECK, ELI , VLADECK & LEKIS, P.c
. phen C. Vladeck
SCVamb
CC: Mr. E. T: Horsley .
_ Mr. H.F.M. Braidwood.
Mr. Joseph E. Burns, Jr.
Mr. Spartaco Mazzuli'
Mr. John Peterpau7.
John C. de Roos, Esq.
Staten Island
Rapid Transit
Operating Authority
370 Jay Street Brooklyn, New York 11201Phone 212 852·5000
December 20, 1974
Mr. Joseph-A. Sickles
416 Hungerford Drive
Rockville, Maryland 20850
Dear Mr. Sickles:
Re: IBEP1, System Council No. 12
IAI4AW and SIRTOA Award No.l
I have received a copy of the letter dated
December-16, 1974, addressed to you by Stephen C. Vladeck,
attorney for the IAM and IBE-s^i, requesting that Special
Board of Adjustment No. 839 be reconvened and a final
award made. _ .
Under the terms of the submission to Board
839, the Board was required to issue its award "on or
before Monday, November 26, 1975.'1 This time was
extended, at your request, to Friday,
December 6,
1974.
No further requests for extensions of time
were made
or granted. Accordingly, Special Board 839 has no
authority.to take any further action in this matter.
. V
V
trul l· ours ,
t /
ohn G. de Roos
cc: Mr. E.T. Horsley
Mr. H.F.M. Braidwood
Mr. Joseph E. Burns, Jr.
Mr. Spartaco Mazzuli
Stephen C. Vladeclc, Esqo-
David L. Yunlch
chu"nnnn
and
emit
C.e.uliro OILeor
Lawrence R. Bailey
Loonald Braun
William L. Butcher
Donald H. Elliott
Justin IJ, Feldman
Harold L. Fisher .
Mortimer J. Giceson
Edwin G. Michaelian
Eben W,Pyne
Constantino Sidamorn-Eristolt
John G.deROeS
General Coonsal
,
VLADECK,. EL1AS,
VLnoecK
F3
LEWIS,
P. C. 3/r 9V75
~£Antarr _
COUNSELLORS AT LAW
ISO( E3F:OADwAY
. New
YORK. N.Y. 1003(3
sOARp .L~Jf~3
HTCPHCN a VIADCDR ARrA
code
212
STLVAN H. GLtA9 $21-2F,Sp
JUDITH D. VLADECA
'
EVCRCTT C
.LCWiS WRITCRD DIACGT DIAL
9wELDON ENDELHARO
TNOHAD T. AILHENNY
221-2555
DEDORAN A.WATARZ
RODERT L
.JAU~TID '
PHILIT H. A.NO
'
December 23, 1974
IM
x. Joseph A. Sickles
416 Hungerford Drive
Rockville, Maryland 20850
' . Re: IBESI, System Council No.12
- IT04AW and SIRTOA Award No. 1
Dear Mr. Sickles:
T have received a copy of the letter to you
dated December 20, 1974, from John G. .de Roos, general
counsel of SIRTOA.
We do not believe that Mr. de Roos.is correct
in determining that the Special Board of Adjustment "has
no authority to take any further action in this matter."
We renew our request that the Board proceed as expeditiously
as possible to resolution of_the amount of damages to which
our clients are entitled.
We regard your Award 11 as establishing liability
and believe your subsequent proceedings are-in the nature
of an inquest consistent with that Award.
Very truly yours,
SCV:IS S ·' hen C. Vl.adeck
cc: Mr. E. T. Horsley
Mr. H.F.M. Braidwood '
. Mr. Joseph E. Burns,Jr.
Mr. Spartaco Mazzuli .
Mr. John Peterpaul
Plato
E. Papps, Esq. - _
. HeL.~an B. Poul, Esqa_ . .. _ _ : . .
Jazittary 3; 1975
Stephen C.*Vladeck, Esquire
Yladech:, Elias
9
Vladeck & Lewis
1501 Broadway
New York,
N. Y. 10036
JoFxn G. do Roos, Esquire i
Staten Island Rapid Transit- Operating
Authority
370 Jay Street
Brooklyn,.
N. Y. 11201
Gentlemens
I have considered the various recent
correspondence
con-
cerning the request by tho Organization Members to reconvene rite Board concerning a specific Av:ard of Dacaayes.
The Order of the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Piety York teas quite broad in Paragraph
g concerning the Board's authority to provide a remedy
for a broach of the Agreement.
In the view of the undersigned, obviously concurred in by
the Organization -Members of the Board, the hoard had
authority to request the parties to detex-tainc the specific
artoiznts duo and retain jurisdiction to resolve ally disputes
bettreexa tile parties concerning a::otztzts dttn.
I. tutderstand, from the correspondence, that the Carrier has
refused to meet t.ith the Organizations in this re.-.trd. Accordingly, I fool it appropriate to r
CCOi1VCI1C
the
hoard
to
consider the question of the
specific
ar..ount of datuagcs duo.
Pioreovor, Z find nothing in the National Modiation Board's
letters of appointment and authority
which would
restrict
a reconvening of the Board.
Re: Spocial Eoard of Adjustment,,/,1f339
S. C. VLadocIc, I;squiro
J. G. do Roos, L;squiro
JaubuarY 3e a-975
Pago 2
f6,
0.9,(
5A X3;12 h^!::.
^-y ..'y.,.
T.
-n. Y . wih
. MUCCI
:.J:
ul
f
to
1118
qt;:styoy7. C
a
rime
andti'_ao:for r'^':`-:'117.1"LX~Z: ,y U1t:
5w,:;-d,
VC,`
t..
0_.._
,...
.UC:
; t
Cs=.`_y__.
._.'.7:
Cp-~ y ` .y
..
I ~'o
Special
D·n..,
i of
G9"Jus;oven.d
l, jt .T9,
3~/ 9/ .75
i-1
~ R
W ,YCr
.~
l3~Lj7
G)(·
-~r~
S
February
7
9
3.975
Stephen C. Vladeclc, Esquire.
Vladeclc3 hlias9 VladecR Lewis
1501 Broadway
?:ow Yoricp N. Yo 10036
John G. denoosa Esquir®
Staten Island Rapid Transit Operating
Authority
370 Jay Street
Brooklyn, ?d. Y. 17.207.
Re: Special Board of Adjustment
#839
Gentlement
On January
3, 1975,
1 corresponded with you advising
that I felt it appropriate to reconvene the subject
Board to consider the question of tine specific amount.
of
damages due.
have hesitated in rescheduling the matter because I
became aware that one of
the
members of the Board was
suvject to n period of jury duty:.
I propose that Board
T;'-839
meat at the offices of the
National Railroad Adjustment Board, .^.2.0 South State
Strcet9 Chica-oa
Illinois,
at 1:00 p.m. on Wednesday9
March
19, 1975-
At that tit;ie9
I
anticipate that the two Organizations
Will,
be prepared to rove forca::rd to dezioT:strat·: the
rat;iou
nt2 of damrtjes
'to
vr:aich each coUsictex-S t,leY ciro
ehtitled. I also anticipate that the Carrier will be
prepared to
offer
any defenses it dociea appropriato concerning the amounts of dauages due.
7 hereby request that you
bring
this matter to the attention of the appropriate officials of the Organization
and Carrier so they cnay plan accordin.-lye
S. vladeck3 Esq..
J. deitoos' Lsq.
February 7
1
7.975 '
Page 2
do not mean to be dictatorial concerning the date for
reconvening the hearing) and will considor an alternate
time if it is more convenient to the parties. However,
if l do not roceivo a request for a chap-ing of time by
February 249 19751
x
ZTi11 assume that the date is firm.
Very truly yoursg
Joseph A. Sickles
JAS/plm
E. 'P. Horsley
li.f.Dl. Braidwood
J. 33. Burns z Jr.
S. liazzulli
S3. Carvatta
m
~l °
. h
,~d r)
MN . - c)
.
1 O t
o.
Q ·C ·~. ' ,0 .. . ', . _ H
-- H
h
O .fl C7 W so 'p U
rd
Id
co (n
rd
-P
ti ° ·~ -
t9 t - rJ
M~
u) ~J - C! . C
u`.
!J , O
U :~
?·, C`
\a- .·~
. i t'N3 r-! '' t ,~,i 0lr E3
O o I
o
1 Ct t-;3 iC C7 r-t rt F.~ rt t~
ni
c9 tf1
W ^I rJ tij ~ :T)
.
u
L7 V' U U , d U -N O
,~l :-t
f:
.<N °
. wi
wa
.~ w-I
r
N . ~ _v
J 10 , o o f-I o ® o
fa Va , P ^ E4
O fit',.
F:
U
;-7
U)
V] j.1
I~ V:
·rI
V)
1,.9
o N v ·!~ Klt.^F
t U S~ F, t~ f; F, .!~ Pa ' J In rt ,-.i s~
O -:.° t N W 't ·r! t9 Ft r., r :5
·· . t, · G 1
·, O .-I O O rd O O Id C: .· '5 c) U O C'! 0
i E'1 CJ r IJ ' s4 ."°.e :3 t;·j O ·rl t1 ~-t C~ ,~'~, tj
·: t s s ·· E o i .a r4 ;-, P a' t·3 7N o
dF-1 0) . 6P N A Ft G1 U C1 U .;.~ ;7 .!-1 rA ty t:·
E? U) .-; m m .a rs co 0 o ': ri °> ° 0 .p. ,,, o
p .u ~i ~ 13 :I- 'fir, .0 .-t t~ . O
C O 71d CL7 t-1 lD C-i :a U" lfl IJ ~r W iiL,. .:. '4 l·7. :~
L~ .f°-i -
O O e1 CV, O O Y Cl °!') O fit G· CIJ~ QS
n j ..~ (1j :.~ t-·1 i·.', r7 ill t^I Q? r-: U` .C: CJ G-i
r· ^~ ·'"I :h, to G t~ O G S7 tz'1 .c; C 0 X 5^ n .-
^. cs, G ~)t1 V .~ G . ~I G ·'.) t: .R'' _fa i'~
r r. CO -H w tll ,~
O e!j dp u1 N t c0 N G ~·t t9 .? t.R-t W .t.; V-. h Hl to,
t..-t 1 U fr h·7 :a U f·, .c." e3 r i; e) S~ O f., a c3 O O
P .d3i N ~S U a) cf .7..1 t) to " c· - tj c3 - V 6-t , t;~ .
d) 'J-.-II 1." U ·~ f.". . U L'~ C7 F " r~ )? t) i'^. . ;':" O ..
G t~" a 0 c C \ ,~ ;, c CU A 0 ,-: e~ n) _ G
fi ° O ~~ p ifs i) CSI O L'1 y', CV O CV w-1 : : L71 r. rd
.4; C.i t: t!1 U ' ifs t) L!1 U V1 U !11 ·U. U C3
. ^'J ..
t,-t Ct t f:J i~ i0 .·'. 03 t0 C3 I; a7 > CJ
O G dat . .^v :), £.: ~'~ - °1C -Ca r-1 ,`h° 23 tv4' t'1 a'i r1 ?) C · F1 ti ri S-t C4 w'1 A, P. r: C% G 1 ra o
^.::~ `i
.tz a:I r3 f4 e) CJ to . Ft a n: n) ' ft e~ to ru Ft to r3 t; ·.) C~ td t~ N :; c , a c0
to 94 M ao 3 m U i u Ct r-^. r-c
tl<: 0 b. h~ t) rt 9C U vi c) E.~U ) : '. J
cC V
0-1 4-t ilj L7 i f1 4," 'U, - Ft K7 t~" `''3 M ro _ .." w O C9
f.· w-1 f~ ·:) rv wd f-i 'U C) F ·rf F1 :'e r-t 0)'1
C$ G) p .i~ . G~ ~: C.), ·'D o C) . ~t Pc 0 4.1 s'-7 V) CG C·) cy P, c-, d -0) p F! _
r: F9° U ·· ta, c,.^ Fa A R, t) Gte p, .4 O
P rd a) 0 ~4 U) 0 V)
.H U f' 0 N K." z t~'° ,4:1 N F3 . °.3' G' U) 'b.,° P,-? ~" G r. p
r. :: ','0.,0'$'~ . fV1C ;_)
s·' · '~ c to m .~ car ~ir ,_^. :~ :~ o o r!
U) a f, a f-t
p -. cs v e) o bn ! c) 1~ o t17 a ·> c v . o t~ o o r., Ft .=! m
·rl L1 47 r' .-'"~ FS ''~ uo 6.1 ,f.'n fi. L7 e'~ N e F,' .t~n i~ £j i.t rJ-t "a4 'Fj' ..
rt - ·ri f7 1 ·rl 0 ·rl 0 9 0 0) 6 ·e·) Ct d, 0) - 0 Jf . 5 ," -. i
O r t6 R9 ht C3 y s'3 ·C C7 Ba, FI C3 ~Ct rd fa 9 f·,! Fs '9 G) r3 r-i _
ra v ·~ c!t 0 0 0 at ~t :z a 0
m
rq ·a _'Ja) c) · :3 tv · a)) e) . p p ev M a a m s m av c) m
G f, ~' r.', ^' C °i, .C, .^., C °'·.. .t'.3, "' °"s r: i: O! O
A·1 j~ FY , C-t ::-1 .~' f4 .-·i H ·P l11 ~,' rt 'ct C~· CV .-I E, ·,·6 9-t al E-0
U 1. '
0~ 0) '
~,...I~. r 0 0 o p o o O
E-i WW r! N CL~~' t.'! . V· CO a\ rl
~~9,%5 - ~~1~ _fXfhBm-.=F~'
f
BOARD ;r7
SPECIAL BOARD OLD ADJUSTMENT No. 839 - Award No. 1 SIRTOA
The following is a
list
of the number of man-hours claimed
by the Machinist for work performeei on STRTOA R-44 cars
by-the-St.-Louis Car Companv Retro-fit team:
1. Removing and applying .- Decellostat - 1 hour per car
(52j cars -.·52 man hours.
2. Removing
and
applying of Air Compressor -- 2 men - 3 hours
each A car only - 36 cars - 216 man hour
3. Removing and replacing Air Condition Compressor -,2 men -
3 hours - 52 cars - man
hours
312
0 -
580 total
man
hours to be distributed among all employes
identified in Board Exhibit #9.-
C>
Josep E. Burns, Jr.
Board Member 839
MECTRICIA 1.S
E!TORARY ELECTRICIANS
STAT.~ ' C.`.i~i.ti1> RAPID TRAl1-IT Ul'E1tAT:f1
-. · T
AURITY
.: 1;1.,C;L1IiICnL AM 1'U;;·a( Iiafi·-Rtt:1:r:~..
Sn3:IOiarY OF L1TL(,YI·:L·;" CU:iI1:G UNJli:R THE "'HOP CRAFTS AGi?ELV'r,1;T
J11:0ARY 1,
1975 -
I1:UQ(rlATIU11l.L BRUTi(ERHUUD
OF UPCPRICAL b:Un:ERS
IM-1 DATE DP;I7E, LIST S::r;xORITY
1IVii3ER BURri i_;Ii7%R:D D/:'lc:
ci,nrr
SERVICE - ASSIl1:ED
S 1:IGitITY
CLASSIFIChTIO;:
X:.RTIi·I; T.Jo 80101%3 7/10/11 7/13/2? - 8/29/31 SUB STA. OPFt
CURLEY,
x.J.
801151N 9/02/23 9/11/112 IG/04/55
LEAD SUB
sra
riTR.
UL^?.:,R, ::'.J. E01159 1/23/Iti 10/14/59 10/11/59
SUB SPA. PiTR.
DICE ,o, J. 801156 2/06/10 1/31/lv4 3/oz/Gi
raavAzit;o, v. 801157 z/o5/31 Sz/o3/5G 5/11F/Gtr
CHILDS, ii. EoliG2 11/oz/15 lo/lo/66 ie/io/G6
i:ccot.:i,r1, R. 801335 5/26/44 7/zo/Gtr 8/16/GE
Toz.ns, JR. c. 801335 7/26/35 4/z8J64. 1/15/70 SUB sTa. CPR,
Dlcr,zszo, J. EoG5?1 7/il/z? 1/x/57 z/G/?4 SUB ST A, riTR>
iii:LLIGnr.:, J. 992121 x]/20/25 4/2.97?4 11/29/?4.
SUB STn. MR.
'xxhsrRci·i,
E. 995135 IS/2/tc4 ?/'-?/74 ?/17/74 -
sclu:u:·,rlat,
R. 9,5140 8/22/111 8/26/?4 . 8/26/?4
F:ccet;.?t,,. z,.c.
801367 is/z215o4/2IJ6Q1/2i/7i
Dzri11;0, c.P E00906 so/G3/i·E 12/06/71 12,107I71
rzs%~I·:`e. s.
860116 3/19153 7/za/?z . 9/20/72
Ti:;R
s:;x,
11. 800917 1/29/43 10/11/72 12/05/72
iW'GGi:aIY, G. 860920 12/11/4? 12/13/72 5/02/72
TER:ELL, G.
995o6t~2/26/53 4/09/?3 ?/1E/73
1·:nLSH, t. P.
995102 9130/113 iG/z2/73 7/15/?4
Rnza,
T. 995105 9/07/53 -10/31/73 7115/74
s:~:a1,. r,.
995138 5/06/45 8/1904 8/19/71:
1 C'ryICInii:
MELPER
:·:c:;i;T·,.', AS
r'~i;tlnr:Ic
*Xccc,·:r.r1, L.c> Po1367 · So/z2/5o 4/?1/G9 4/01 j7o
*i MI::U, C.P. 8UU906 10/03/118 12/GG/7I I2/0 G/?1
$Dx SI:i.VO, S. 800916 3/19/53 7/2a/?2 7/23/72
=~;.sc~:,1:z, t~:. 800917 5/29/113 So/11/7z 10/11/72
*rcco.a:~i,
G. 8010,20 12/11/47 I2/Sa/?z Sz/lE/72
~`1iu,:.`~.LI·, G. 995064 z/zG/53 4/ 09/73 tt/G9/?3
KiiRSClIlslill. L. 995081 6/21/52 8/02/73 8/02/73
v1-aALS11, T>P. . 90,5102 9/30/113 .:o/zz/?3 io/2z/73
*PJ.In, T. 995105 9 /07/53 10/31173 10/31/73
*S :;:I1, h· '. 995138 5/6/45 8/19/711 8/19/711
In accordance orith Rule 28 of the current aRreareont this roster is open t0 protest for a
period o° sixty
(60)
days from date of posting_ - -
t30i.RD r;KIiIDIi NO. 8
' S0IGRTT'i OF El-.PLOY~SVCC;-:Ii:Cr ifiy:rz2~-;'n??: SHOP CR."FTS i:G:2EcI,Ti1IT " ,_
JAI:GARY
1, 19·75 ,
- 1`;sf:.i2:L~iICi;.~.L A :OC:-A::i1Ci; Ci· :::.C:I:1:I:iPS r1:7 1.5:!0 SNa:~ 'v.'C~24:~RS .
BOARD 839
° EXHIBIT
It' 9,
-` ~j.
~l,~rr G-
.
- '411/G~~I~tT
lr
?a,^ :5=aZ OCCL`FkTIoii
, ni:
DAIS MIS L:,ST Sci:IC?Ir1 SEI~T_CazTY
AID 2iQ~ES , . 17U-r:.j-3ZR B01Zrt ENTG.'Z.D DATE C?rFT CLl,SSI:ICATI0:
S=RiIICz ASSIGi-D
F_CI?:G:ISrS - ''
a® RAGUI reF. ,970159 7/16135 9/23/55 . 7/01165
2,
Lu.Po,
A,Ke 201107 9(21129 · 4-/11/56 7/01/65 SHOP r"cIrru_I'
3.
MR= LL,O,L 801230
9/26/34. 6107156 to/11/65 .
4d
BozoGI;IA, F.
800363 3/ol/42 3/1.8/63 4/29/69 ' - .
RUSSO, z,. . 801
-341 1/04/44 5/24/65 8/ol/69 .
6. FT.YSM, Y:oJ.
991338 22/30/33 1116156 11/24/71.-
7/~ _ a.MI.~?l,
u- 991337 - 2/03; 32 119156 . 6129/73
8. BIS3oP,A.
995142 6129117 -9/24/71 9/24/74
tTORAPY MhCRI?-zsTS - . -
-11
AR.A.I,10, D.r.
001358 . 4/15/43 1/21/69 2/11/71
2. ' MARSs1TI,
Je
800910 10/29/51 3/29/72' 4124172
_'
I
31
RvTIGLL.2:o,
Jo
995095 . 6jz~51c 10/1173 -. 10/1/73
Yf.CNINIS T ::aL°: uzS' -
j
.o
I
c01 0,
s<
806211
8/29/12 , 9/1.4/56 9118/67
2. LBARro, D.
801358 4/15/43 1121169 1/28169'
30 . *KARS]ETTI, J.
800910 10129,/51 . 3·/29/72 3/29172 . I
4.
mRUTIGLIM;o, J.
995095 6116151, 10/01/73 10/01/73 -
- ::'01;11;-:;,S L_~-_CHAI;IC -.
In accoirlanco with Rulo
28
of the current ac:reonont this-roster is open to protest for a
n period of silty (60) days c.'rc:ro date of po7tinl;. :.
eTOsr,ry1 A.zcz:.x~?e:
4111 HUNac,·.FORn o(~!%E
ROCKVILLE. MARYLANO 2.0,751)
h11xn
coot 501 .772-7400
March 23._ 3975
E. T. Horaloy
National Milload AdJuntwnt Board
20th Floor, Conaumcro Building
220 so. State Street
'Chicago, ' Zllirlolo 60504
H. da. M. Bsaidwood -
Ida:ional Foi3rand AdjuUmont Board
.*~Oth Floor, acs: su~:,rs3 Buildi
220 So. State Stroat
Chicago,
xilin.o15 60604
Re: Special Board of Adjuatmont No.
839
Gentlemen:
Pursuant to the notification coatainod in
Icy
Pobri%ary
7,
19,75
letter to Mo3cra. vindaci< and ciCRoou, vi th c, copy.
to you, Special Board of AdJuUtmon t ho.
839
wet at the - .
offices of the
National
Railroad Adjuatmant Board ire Coi
ao,ga9 at, 1190
pm.
cat %aroh ,3.90
1975
Apt that time, the Orgcnlzationn presented
cwridonce concexa..~-
IrZ the nnouztB of dnnugog duo undox the Doccmber 51
19744
Dociaion of the hoard.
%t is noted that noithoow of you Qcxe proaont at the hearing.
PlpMD0
be edvinod that the Board hnz asroad to moot in
Mecutiro Session on
Tlioaday5
April -15, 1975 for purposes
of aadopiaryj aw.Award
conco.:-^zing dnmogmo. Tho neetirt in
ochoduled to'convcao at 2100 p.m. in the o-fticob of the
Nalionnl Modiwtion Board in Wnahlmgton, L. C.
Both of you
are invited,
and urged, to attGnd. In the event
you anticipeto
ai,tar_di.uz6 and
of the:; the Limo or the place
io ineozavonicnt4 alooso ndvioo at the oar:ioat poooiblo
oppo.;tunI:y so eat eso
may
oonzidor do©cbodulna o; the
Eyocutiro S·odai wnA -
''r'AcrrhiEHr AI
Or COUNSEL
FERREM ANO EHRLICH
n,cRano s, c>rni,cn
viucrmr a
rune",, in.
B:. T. B.ors31oy .
£3. F. M. Dxaidwood
ML·,xch 21®
1975 -
Pago 8
For
plop
purponan, IC ur3o that you roply at the parliont
poaaiiblo 4'f,~ra~.
Vory truly yourofl
Joseph
A.
Jacklem, Chatrwan
bpaciai iUoard o8' Adjustment No. 839
.
JASJplen _ _ . · . .
cc a J. Burns, Jr. -
5. Hnaxulll
J.
V1ad®cfs9 L;aq.,
J. dalioors, Esq.
ii'. <:rarvattn -
:a6m14en i JI a r,
,''riSpiv
! CSiiSIt
477:4cf114fN7-
3
3r0 Jay S;reap Brooklyn, Flew York 11201 Phone 212 053-`0, 000
Mr. H. F. P?. Braidwood
National Railroad Adjustment Board
20th door, Consumers Building ,
22C So. State Street
.^_ics;o, Illinois 60604. - .
Dear Mr. Braidrrooda
April 7, 1975
David L. :`unlch
Cnmrnan :n.t
CW yl Emc.n.v
On.cor
Lawrence R. Bailey
Leoncr,j Braun
t7iil'·.arn t. 8u:cher
Donald H. El:ICII
Jus::n tt. FetdmLn
Harold L. Fisher
C.4nr;im_r J~ Gleason
Ed::in G. t.;in!:ac:ian
cCan V`r. gene
Con;tan;;ne Si3amon-Eristolf
John G. doRoos
General Coun-ol
I am writing
this letter to express our appreciation
to.yau for year services as a carrier member on Special Board
o.;. Adjustmc:.xt 839.
' As you know, this Special Board was created pursuant
t:i an order of the United States District Court for the Eastern
;.'District
of.New York in a 'then pending action. Special Board
of Adjustinent 839 issued Award 140. 1 taithinithe
tine
frame
specified in the order and the lawsuit involved was discontinued.
Despite the contentions of the employee representatives,
this Board is no longer in existence. So that there can be no
doubt-that you have no further responsibility in this. matter,
this Authority hereby revokes any authorization to further
represent it as a carrier member of such Special Board.
Thank you for your efforts on our behalf.
Veryrtruly yours,
cc: Joseph A. Sickles, Esq.
416 Eiungerford Drive
Eockville, Maryland 20850
John G. de Roos
Staten Is]and
Rapid Transit
®p°rading Authority
379JaySlreet Sroo:r:yn,NexYorh.V20fPhone 212aS2·5000
~.. ?'.r Horsley
L ^d.
Oational Railroad Adjustment Board
20th Floor, Consumers Building
220 So. State Street
Ch=o=go, =llinois 60604
Dear
?x.
Horsley:
AJ TTfi L flM,~nlr G.
April
7e
1975
David L. Yunich
C"Iln'2A A.d
Gird Ea.Cu:i.. Olncur
Law·ence R. tGaiky
Lscnard Braun
VhhIim.L. Butcher
Donald H. Euiott
Justin N. Feldman
Harold L. Esher
MorVmcr J. Gin e3on
Edwin G. Michaufian
Eccn \V. Pyn^
Constantine Sidanon-Eristoff
John G.deRoos
Gcniral Counsel
T am writing this letter to express our appreciation
to you for your services as a carrier member
cIL
Special. Board
of Adjustment 839:
·· As you know, this Special Board was created pursuant
to an order of the United States District Court for the-Eastern
District of-New York in a then pending action. Special Board
of Adjustment 839 issued Award No. 1 within the time frame
specified in the order and the lawsuit involved eras discontinued.
Despite the contentions of the employee representatives,
this Board is no longer in existence. So that there can be no
doubt that you have no further responsibility in this matter, .
this Authority hereby revokes any authorization to further
represent it as a carrier member of such Special Board.
Thank you for your efforts on our behalf.
Very'truly yours,
John G. de Roos
cc: Joseph A. Sickles, Esq.
416 Hungerford Drive .
Rockville: Maryland 20850