The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee David Dolnick when award was rendered.
(A) Requested separation pay from F. K. Stanford, Superintendent of the Illinois Central Railroad on August 16, 1969. Request was refused in letter dated September 17, 1969.
(B) Sent copies of both letters to Mr. H. J. Zack, along with my reasons for believing the Washington Job Protective Agreement had been violated.
(C) Mr. H. J. Zack had two conferences with Mr. J .P. Lange, Manager of Labor Relations. Separation pay was denied at both of these by Mr. Lange.
(D) Received a letter from Mr. H. J. Zack on the denials stating that he was taking their word on this. He refused to take the case any further and said he was closing his file on it.
(E) Wrote a letter to Congressman Shipley asking his advise on this matter. He suggested and so did the Director of the National Mediation Board, that I contact the National Railroad Adjustment Board.
NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF Carmen ORGANIZATION OF Palestine SHOP.
The regular Car Inspection job Thursday thru Monday with Tuesday and Wednesday as rest days held by W. Richards and the
The claimant admits that he received an offer of another job, but seems to contend that there is some sort of time limit on offers of employment. The Awards quoted above clearly provide that the employe is required to exercise his seniority to obtain another position, whether the company offers any positions at all. In this case, not only did the claimant fail to utilize his seniority, he refused to acknowledge a concrete offer of employment made by Master Mechanic Harrell.
Clearly, this claim is directly parallel to the cases decided in the preceeding awards, and should be denied.
The company has shown that this claim is not within the jurisdiction of the Second Division inasmuch as the September 25, 1964 Agreement grants exclusive jurisdiction to such claims to Special Board of Adjustment No. 570. The claim should be dismissed in accordance with Second Division Awards 5633, 5667, 5668, 5750 and 5939.
Without prejudice to this position, the company has also shown that the claimant was given proper notice under Rule 28 of the schedule agreement, and that this notice was proper because the furlough was part of a standard force reduction. The company has also shown that there were numerous positions available throughout the system, including over 100 set-up employes, and three permanent positions at Champaign, Illinois. Had the claimant complied with the requirements of Article I, and exercised his seniority, he would not have lost any compens-ataon, and would have had continuous employment.
By failing to obtain one of the positions available to him through the exercise of his seniority rights, the claimant has forfeited the protective benefits of the September 25, 1964 Agreement. .
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.
Petitioner is asking for a lump sum separation allowance under Article I of the September 25, 1964 Mediation Agreement because his position was abolished. Article VI, Sections 1 and 8 of that Agreement establish a Special Board with exclusive jurisdiction over disputes arising out of that Agreement. They read:
Since Petitioner's claim is based upon an alleged violation of the September 25, 1964 Agreement, an interpretation is required of the provisions of that Agreement. He is, therefore, in the wrong forum. Only the Shop Craft Special Board of Adjustment, as provided in Sections 1 and 8 of Article VI, has jurisdiction to adjudicate the claim. There is no alternative but to dismiss the claim.