Award No. 5513 Docket No. 5316 2-C&O-EW-'68
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Paul C. Dugan when award was rendered.
SYSTEM FEDERATION NO. 41, RAILWAY EMPLOYES'
DEPARTMENT, AFL-CIO (Electrical Workers)
THE CHESAPEAKE AND OHIO RAILWAY COMPANY
(Southern Region)
1. That the Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company violated the current agreements, particularly Mediation Agreement of June 5, 1962, as per Article 3, and Rule 27 (b) Shop Crafts Agreement by its failure to give a five working day advance notice before reducing forces at the Diesel Engine and Coach Yard Repair Shop at Charlottesville, Virginia.
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: The Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company, hereinafter referred to as the Carrier, owns and operates a Diesel Engine and Coach Yard Repair Shop at Charlottesville, Virginia, at which D. B. Sibley, R. A. Morris and E. L. Scruggs, hereinafter referred to as the claimants, are employed. Claimants hold seniority as electricians at these shops under the provision of Rule 31 of the Shop Crafts Agreement.
Under date of September 3, 1965, carrier posted Bulletin No. 54 (copy attached as Exhibit A), which did not list the claimants as being furloughed, nor was any list of employes to be furloughed furnished to the local committee.
This dispute has been handled with the Carrier up to and including the highest designated officer of the Carrier handling such disputes, with the result that all have declined to make a satisfactory settlement.
tion became available. Morris was also called for temporary work in October, 1965, but he failed to report. In April, 1966, he was recalled for regular employment as roundhouse foreman. Scruggs was also called for temporary work in October, 1965, but did not report because of alleged illness. He has not subsequently made himself available for work.
The above is shown merely to point out the excessive nature of the claim and shows the lack of logic in the grievance. The claim is obviously based on the theory that the men should not have been furloughed. But even if this were so, it does not follow that the injury alleged to have occurred to each claimant is the amount they seek.
There is nothing in the agreement which prohibits the Carrier from reducing forces. The applicable rule merely says that five working days' notice "will be given the men affected before reduction is made", and does not prescribe the form, content or manner of giving notice. The Claimants have not contended that they were uninformed or misinformed as to the action to be taken. They were given notice of the reduction twice, both of which fulfilled the requirement of the applicable rule.
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.
The issue involved herein is whether or not Carrier complied with Rule 27(b) as amended by Article III of the June 5, 1962 Agreement, when it bulletined the abolishment of various electrician positions without naming the men so affected and furnishing the list of names of the Claimants to the local Committee.
The facts are that Carrier made a force reduction of three electrician positions at Charlottesville. Virginia by bulletining the abolishment of six positions and concurrently adding three new positions.
The Organization's position is that Rule 27(b) as amended by Article III of the June 5, 1962 Agreement was violated when Carrier failed to list the names of Claimants on Bulletin No. 54 and failed to furnish a list of employes to be furloughed, including Claimants herein, to the local Committee.
The Carrier's contention is that Bulletin No. 54 was a proper notice given to Claimants in regard to the abolishment of their positions; that Rule 27(b), as amended, does not specify the form that the notification shall consist of, or that such notice be in writing.
The above rule was amended to read "Five" days' notice be given in such a situation.
Bulletin No. 54 posted by Carrier in this instance and which involves the question as to whether it was proper notice as required by said Rule 27(b) reads as follows:
First, at the referee hearing held before this Board, both parties attempted to read from files, which were outside the record of this claim. Circular No. 1 setting forth the Rules of Procedure before this Board, states that the parties shall set forth in their original submission all relevant, argumentative facts, including all documentary evidence submitted in exhibit form. Therefore, this Board cannot consider any evidence or data that is not submitted in accordance with Circular No. 1.
In regard to the merits of the claim, we are of the opinion that Bulletin No. 54 did not comply with the provisions of Rule 27(b), as amended, of the Agreement, in that it did not inform Claimants as to their furlough date from service and a list of their names was not furnished the local Committee. The bulletin in question did not sufficiently inform Claimants of their furlough. While it is true that the rule does not specify the method of notice, nevertheless, the notice so given must impart notice of furlough in this instance directly to the individuals involved.