The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Donald F. McMahon when award was rendered.
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: Sheet Metal Worker Helper H. M. Carter, hereinafter referred to as the claimant, was employed on May 25, 1964, by the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad, hereinafter referred to as the carrier, as a sheet metal helper in thQ carrier's repair shops in Waycross, Georgia.
The claimant, prior to becoming a sheet metal worker helper, has been as an employe of the sheet metal worker's craft on May 25, 1964, he then established employment rights in conformity with the seniority provisions of Rule 12 of said current agreement and thereupon became an employe of the carrier subject to all the rights, privileges and benefits embodied in the collective current agreement rules to which all other employes of the sheet metal workers craft are subject, regardless of their length of service.
Moreover, when the carrier made the election to remove this claimant from service at the close of his work day on -May 25, 1964, without the benefit of any hearing and authorized representation as provided for in Rule 21 of the said current agreement, that such action of the carrier would obviously constitute an unjust suspension from the service, and for which loss this claimant is entitled to be made whole under Rule 21, which reads as follows:
FINDINGS: The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that:
The carrier or carriers and the employ or employes involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employe within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 1934.
Claim is made on behalf of Sheet Metal Worker Helper H. M. Carter, for improper and unjust dismissal from service of Carrier, May 26, 1964. Claimant requests he be returned to service with seniority rights and all other rights unimpaired, and compensation for each working day, for 8 hours, until he is restored to service. The Organization relies upon the provisions of Rules 16(g) and 21 to support its contentions.
Carrier relies on the provisions of Rule No. 16 of the Agreement to support its position here.
The facts and record before us show that Claimant was formerly in the employ of Carrier for several years as a Fireman. That as a result of Award by Arbitration Board No. 282, claimant having a rate classification of C 6, described as less than ten years, but more than 2 years' service in Fireman position, claimant, was advised of his rights to accept other work offered by Carrier, and upon his refusal, he elected to accept a severance payment from Carrier. By such action and accepting the severance pay, he no longer had any employe status with Carrier, and in addition gave up all his seniority rights on Carrier"s property. On May 25, 1964, claimant made written application for employment as a Sheet Metal Worker Helper, and was put to work the same day and performed service for about 3 hours.
It is noted at this point, that claimant was put to work by the General Foreman who failed to follow Carrier's requirements that an approval of application for employment must be approved by the Personnel Department. Claimant fully understood this requirement, when he signed the application dated May 25, 1964. A reference is made to Par. 7, last page of the application which reads as follows: