F un-I 1 MTIQNl1L RIIILWAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 6409










    Dis;-)ute : . Claim of Emi loges


          That the Kansas City Southorn Railroad Ccmpa:W violated tie -rules of the controlling agreement of April 1, 1945, when they furloughed Richard Lee Zortz after completing his apprenticeship, and up-raced apprentice Eric Pust to an Elactrici:tn without an upt;raai:Z aE,=~reeLeLt, and refusing to call Richard Lee Zurtz, a qualified electrician from the furloughed list.


          2. That accordingly, the han.as Cit~T Southern i:ailrod Comj;aqy be ordered to compensate Electrician Richard Lee Zcrtz in tho uzoLur: of eieit (8) hours at the pro rata rate for January 15, 1971 aid ~~. Zt (8) hours at the pro rata rate for each and every day thereafter until the violation

( has been corrected, plus 6,% interest ccarpounaed aruiually on the
          anniversary date of the claim.


r'3.r~dirt~s
The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that:

 The carrier or carriers and the ernplcye or employes involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employe within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as approved Juice 21, 1934.

    This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.


        Parties to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing thereon.


Claimant had been employed as an Electrician Apprentice at Pittsburgh, Kansas - in the Diejal Shcof the Carrier until coiapletion of his four year appreuticesnip, ova June 11, huh. can that dute he was releaUc:d by the Carrier. On July 189 1970 the Carrier teitiporari:!y upgraded Electri--Llan hpprentice Post who had been employed on February 7, 1968 and who had riot ccxiipleted his apprenticeship training.

 The C-rganizatiun contends that Claimant was deprived of his rights uucier the Agreement when li;: vas not recalled. on July 18, 19'f0. The Carrier states that r"lai:uant was teamiiiat_~d upon completion of his apprenticeship and therefore had no rights, while the Organization states that he was merely furloughed and " ... when
 Form 1 Award 110. 6409
 Page 2 I)ocitec rdo. 625
 2-YCS-EW-'72'

 it was found they needed an addition-1 electrician mechG.riic, it would caly be reasonable to recall the Claimant who had,Zzormleted his apprenticeship training..." Rule 28 (k) states:

            "(k) If an apprentice is retained in the service upon ca:.,pleting his apprenticeship, his seniority rights as a mechanic will dote from the tune of completion of apprenticeship."


The record contains evidence of the efforts. of the OrZaLization to modify this Rule in 1963 and 1965 to allow apprentices to establish seniority upon canpletion of their apprenticeships. Tao evidence teas been presented showing Claimrant's pare had been included on any seniority rosters or txlough lists issued subsequent to June 11, 1969.

 The language of Rule 28 (k) is clear and unambiguous; this Board is not empowered to, -re-·writa the: Rules. We find that Claimant was not an employee subsequent to June 11., 1969.

                        A WA R D


      Claim denied.


                        NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMPIT BUARD By Order of Second Division


Attest:,c°, ~~':.i'.~w
 ..Executive Secretary . .:

 Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 21st day of November., 1-972.