The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Paul C. Dugan when award was rendered.
SYSTEM FEDERATION NO. 71, RAILWAY EMPLOYES'
DEPARTMENT, AFL-CIO (Carmen)
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: The employes named above in part 1 "Claim of Employes", hereinafter referred to as the claimants, are employed by the Duluth, Missabe & Iron Range Railway Co., hereinafter referred to as the carrier, in the class or craft of carmen on the carrier's Iron Range Division at the locations specified.
Under date of November 17, 1961, carrier posted notices reducing its force of carmen and furloughing claimants on the date specified in the notices. As will be noted, all of claimants were furloughed effective November 22, 1961 with the exception that two (2) were furloughed on November 20, 1961 and one (1) was furloughed on November 21, 1961.
All of the claimants had been working regularly on positions having Thursday, November 23, 1961 as a regularly assigned work day of their respective work weeks.
The carrier respectfully submits that the claim of the employes in this docket be denied.
FINDINGS: The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that:
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.
Carrier's contention in this holiday dispute for Thanksgiving Day, November 23, 1961, is that Claimants were not "available for service" because they were not able to sign up for extra work because the parties herein did not adopt Article IV of the August 21, 1954 Agreement; that the Claimants did not sign up for relief work in accord with Rule 28 (b); that an employe has fifteen days in which to respond to a call for service.
The controlling provision of Section 3(ii), Article III of '60 Agreement and the "Note" therein, defines "availability" for service. We do not agree with Carrier's contention that because Claimants were not able to sign up for relief work, or did not sign up for relief work, or the fact that they had 15 days to respond to a call for service, that therefore Claimants were precluded from being determined "available for service" in accord with Section 3(ii) and the "Note" therein of Article III of '60 Agreement.
This Board has previously rejected as the test for "availability" the requirement that an employe must respond to a call for service from Carrier, and we have held that the test for so determining "availability" is whether or not Claimants were called for service by Carrier, and Claimants did or did not respond to such a call. If they were called for service by Carrier and they failed to respond to such a call, they would be in violation of the Agreement. Claimants could not be found guilty of failing to respond to a call for service if they weren't called by Carrier. However, in the instant claim, Carrier didn't call Claimants and Claimants did not lay off of their own accord, and therefore Claimants were available for service on the workday following the holiday, in accord with Section 3(ii) of Article III of '60 Agreement, and the claim must be sustained.