SYSTEM FEDERATION NO. 101, RAILWAY EMPLOYES'
DEPARTMENT, A. F. of L.-C. I. O. (Electrical Workers)
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: P. J. Parduhn, hereinafter referred to as the claimant, was employed as a groundman in the Communication Department of the Great Northern Railway Company, hereinafter referred to as the carrier.
The seniority date of the claimant as a groundman (Class 6) is October 11, 1951. Prior to May 29, 1958, the claimant was assigned to a line gang or crew. Effective May 29, 1958, the claimant was furloughed in a reduction of forces.
R. J. Flaten is employed as a groundman and has a seniority date as groundman (Class 6) of July 14, 1955. He was assigned to work in the communication shop at St. Paul, Minnesota, prior to May 29, 1958, and has continued to work in that shop since that date.
This dispute has been handled with all carrier officials designated to handle such matters, with no satisfactory settlement being reached.
claimant failed to exercise his seniority in the manner as provided for in the agr-nent, there is absolutely no validity to this claim.
Carrier submits, since the facts in this case conclusively indicate that the claimant failed to avail himself of a continuing employment opportunity which was available to him and provided for in the controlling agreement, this claim of the Employes is utterly devoid of any degree of merit and must be denied for if found otherwise Rules 17 and 25 of the controlling agreement would be reduced to nothing more or less than a group of meaningless words and phrases.
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.
Since the rules do not provide either for point or department seniority or for point or department reduction in force, system seniority must govern. Award No. 1895. Accordingly it was the duty of carrier to furlough in reverse seniority order and claimant was improperly furloughed. It was not necessary for him to attempt to bump the employe who should have been furloughed in his stead. Award No. 1237.