SYSTEM FEDERATION NO. 100, RAILWAY EMPLOYES'
DEPARTMENT, A. F. OF L. (FIREMEN & OILERS)
DISPUTE: CLAIM OF EMPLOYES: That the carrier at Susquehanna, Pa., removed from service Laborer George Meagley in violation of current agreement, effective October 1, 1934, and that accordingly he be restored to service and reimbursed for all time lost.
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: Laborer George Meagley entered service of the carrier at Susquehanna, Pennsylvania on October 3, 1941, and remained therein until November 26, 1941, when he was removed from service with the explanation that his employment application was not approved.
POSITION OF EMPLOYES: The employes certify that no notice has been received from the carrier to revise the seniority provisions of the agreement as provided for in Rule 18, reading-
The carrier's position relative to the right to approve or reject the employment application of an employe within a period of ninety days, creates a new and an arbitrary rule, for there is no such implied language or right contained in any rule between the covers of our current agreement.
It is the employes' position that George Meagley, upon entering the service of the carrier on October 3, 1941, established employment relations, rights, protection and benefits of all provisions of the current agreement, and all of which is confirmed by Rule 11 (b), reading as follows:
The employes further contend that George Meagley was discharged on November 26, 1941, by the carrier without a proper investigation to determine whether or not dismissal action would be justifiable, and in violation of Rule 1-7 (a), reading-
An employe coming under the scope of this agreement will not be disciplined by record, suspension (except by pending investigation) nor discharged, without sufficient or just cause, until the proper investigation has been made; such investigation will be made at the earliest possible time.
It is finally contended that the disapproval of the claimant's application, would not constitute "sufficient or just cause" for dismissal, within the meaning of provisions of the current agreement.
CARRIER'S STATEMENT OF FACTS: George Fremont Meagley was an applicant for employment as laborer, Susquehanna, Pennsylvania. He was informed and understood that he was being permitted to start work pending approval of his employment application, and his attention was called to the paragraph on page three (3) of the application, reading as follows:
Application was disapproved by the employment department and Meagley was so informed by the supervising officer at Susquehanna, Pennsylvania.
POSITION OF CARRIER: This claim of George F. Meagley is similar to the claims of Laborers Whalen, Vandermark, Laconi, Decker and Miiglionico, Docket 739-Erie-FO; and Laborer Walter J. Montgomery, Docket 746Erie-FO, which dockets are now pending with the Second Division.
Applicants for employment who are permitted to work are not considered as employes until their applications are approved by the employment department, and this is called to the attention of all applicants when they complete Application Form 2187. When employment is approved, their seniority dates from day "pay starts."
FINDINGS: The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon.the whole record and all the evidence, finds that:
The carrier or carriers and the employe or employes involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employe within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 1934.
This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein. ,868-3 341