The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in

addition Referee Francis X. Quinn when award was rendered.


PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

SYSTEM FEDERATION NO. 99, RAILWAY EMPLOYES'

DEPARTMENT, AFL-CIO (Carmen)








EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: Carman M. J. Cantrell, hereinafter referred to as the claimant is employed at Mays Yard, New Orleans, Louisiana.


The facts of the claim are that on 1`riday, December 20, 1968, which v;_ .s
 claimant's rest day, he received a call from the car foreman that due to the
 longshoremen preparing to go on strike at 6:00 P. 1J., the Illinois Central
 Railroad was closing down the prepare track at Mays Yard, effective the
 following morning, and due to this, claimant had been rolled off his job on the
 "7:00 A. M. to 3:00 P. M. shift by a senior employe. Claimant had to take a job
 on the 3:00 P. M. to 11:00 P. M. shift, after being assured by the car foreman
 that no junior employes would be working on the daylight shift. Claimant
 was unable to start his job on Saturday, December 21st, and was told to report
 on Sunday, December 22nd. However, en reporting for his job on December
 22nd, he passed the prepare track and saw about ten (10) junior employes
 working the 7:00 A. M. to 3:00 P. M. shift. On inquiry of the assistant general
 car foreman, claimant was told that the junior employes were called in to work
 Saturday, December 21st, to work the cars on the prepare track, bit on ^ day
 to day basis. Claimant then informed the foreman he would work the dr.vli~rht
 job on a day to day basis, but was refused and wouldn't allow him to displa^e
 one of the junior employes. The claim for eight (8) hours' pay at the straight
 time rate for December 21, 22 and 23, 1968 is submitted due to claimant being

rest days of the train yard position. Under no circumstances would Mr. Cantrell have had a right to work those days or, to alternate, the penalty pay claimed.




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 ernploye 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.




Claimant lost his regularly assigned position through the exercise of seniority by another carman whose position had been abolished. When this occurred, Claimant was given the opportunity to and did bid on another position which his seniority entitled him to hold.


The controlling contractual clauses are Rule 18 (Filling Vacancies), Rule 28 (Reduction and Restoration of Forces) and Rule 58 (Displacing Junior Employes).


The record indicates that the force redaction affecting certain junior employes was made in strict accordance with Rule 28 of the Agreement. The Claimant alone must accept full responsibility for his refusing to.work December 21, 22, 23, 26 and 27.


Since the record indicates that no vacancies existed on the first shift, and claimant had a regular position we find no contractual right which could have been used to displace other employes.


Furthermore, it appears that Claimant was gainfully employed on December 24, 28, 29, 30, 1968 and throughout that period suffered no monetary loss. There is no provision in the Agreement for the penalty sought.











ATTEST: E. A. Killeen
 Executive Secretary

 Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 21st day of April, 1971.
 Keenan Printing Co., Chicago, Ill. Printed in U.S.A.
 0125 8