Form 1
(Advance copy. The usual printed copies will be sent later.,

NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTfi7E1r BOARD

SECO14D DIVISION


The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee Irwin.M. Lieberman when award was rendered.

Parties to DisLute: ( (Machinists)

 The Kansas City Southern Railway Company and Louisiana & Arkansas Railway Company .

Award No. 6411
 Docket No. 6266
 2-KCS-MA-'72

 (a) That under the provisions of the current agreement, employes of the mchinist craft at Shreveport, Louisiana ( G. G. Garza, I. Reese, D. B. Turner, T. .1. Beach, J. M. Hines,, R. M. Ebarb, D. Crawford, J. L. McDonald., L. T. Hollingsworth, L. W. Leynolds, Jr.., R. J. Brown, E.E. Mathes., T. R. Redmon and W. 0. Wells) and at Pittsburg, Kansas (J. 0. Lavery, K. L. Kabonic, G. T. Buford, L. W, Harry, L. Menichetti, T. J. Blackman, W. 0. Elliff, Jr.., R . Garner, R . E . Small, W . 0 . McQ,uade , F . Maxwell, Jr.., D .D . Ross, H . W . Cutler, J. W. Johnson, B. J. Ross, J. L. Natalini and D. E. Sanders) were improperly denied their right to work on their respective regular positions, on May 19, 1971.
(b) That the Carrier be ordered to pay each of the naried Claimants one day's pay.

 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.

Claimants were regularly employed as machinists, machinist helpers or apprentices at Shreveport, Louisiana and Pittsburgh, Kansas, two large shop facilities. A substantial part of their work appears to have been "dead work" on equipment that had been out of service and in the shop for some time. At 6 A.M. on May 17, 1971 a National strike by the Signalman's Organization began, shutting down the Carrier. Carrier posted a notice in the shops (sending copies to the General Chairmen) at 10 P.M.1 on May 17, 1971 abolishing Claimant's jobs effective May 18, 1971 at 12:01 A.M. At about 11 P.M. on May 18, 1971 the President signed a Joint Congressional Resolution (S.J. 100) ending the strike (and. forbidding inter alia, lockouts by the Carriers)..

Form 1 Award No. 6411
 Page 2 Docket No. 6266
 2-KCS-MA-'72

 Claimants reported for work on their regular shifts, beginning at $ A.M. on 00
 May 19, but were not permitted to return to work by the Carrier until May 20th.
 The Carrier maintains that some picketing carried over to May 19th and that there
 were some trains which did not get under way until the second. day foll-)wing the
 signing of the Congressional Resolution. The Carrier did not deny the continued
 existance of shop work for the Claimants.
 The history of Reduction of Force Rules goes back to 1919 with many subsequent
 amendments and interpretations. Currently applicable is Rule 18 (b) of the Agreement
 effective April 1, 1945 (as amended.) which reads:
 "(b) Five working days' notice will be given employees affected before
 reduction is made and lists will be furnished the local committee".

 Also relevant is Article II of Public Law 91-226 of April 19, 1970:
 "Article II - Force Reduction Rule
 Insofar as applicable to the employees covered by this agreement,
 Article VI of the Agreement of August 21, 1954 is hereby amended to read
 as folhws
 (a) Rules, agreements or practices, however established, that require
 advance notice to employees before temporarily abolishing positions or
 making temporary force reductions are hereby modified to eliminate any
 requirement for such notices under emergency conditions, such as flood, low
 snow storm, hurricane, tornado, earthquake, fire or labor dispute other
 than as covered by paragraph (b) below, provided that such conditions
 result in suspension of a carrier's operations in whole or in part. It
 is understood and agreed that such temporary force reductions will be con
 fined solely to those work locations directly affected by any.suspension
 of operations. It is further understood and agreed that notwithstanding
 the foregoing, any employee who is affected. by an emergency force reduction
 and reports for work for his position without raving been previously
 notified rot to report, shall receive four hours' pay at the applicable
 rate for his position.
 tb) Rules, agreements or practices, however established, that require
 advance notice before positions are temporarily abolished or forces are
 teu-T-orarily reduced are hereby modified so as not to require advance notice
 where a suspension of a carrier's operations in whole or in part is due to
 a labor dispute between said carrier and any of its employees. .

The Organization argues that the vast majority of the work that Claimants were regularly assigned to do was available before the strike, during and. after the strike. .'his position would be persuasive, particularly in the light of prior awards (Second Division Awards 2195, 2196-and 6112) if the provisions of Article VI of the

Form 1 Award No. 6411
 Page 3 Docket No. 6266
 2-KCS-MA-'72

 Agreement of August 21, 1954 :sere in effect. However, Article II of Public Law 91-226 quoted above specifically superseded Article VI, eliminating the basis for the claim.

 The Organization further contends that Carrier failed to establish the fact that there was an emergency, under the applicable Rule. The Rule states "...emergelacy
 conditions, such as flood, snow, storm . Drovided that such conditions result in
 suspension of a carrier's operations in wnola or in part ...." Surely a national strike
 shutting down the entire industry, much less this Carrier, falls within the definition.
 This is suppcrted by our positions in Awards 2195 and 2196 cited above. The additional
 point is made that the emergency ended upon the signing of the Joint, Resolution, requiring notice by the Carrier conforming to the requirements of Rule 1$ (b). We do not

 concur in this argment, since the jobs had not been reestablished and no basis in the Rules exists for a second force reduction procedure. .

 The Organization also states that the Carrier's action in failing to return Claimants to work on Play 19th was dilatory and in fact a disciplinary action in view of Claimants having observed the Signalmen's picket line. No evidence was presented in support of this contention.

 We have held repeatedly that we are not empowered to change or re-write the Rules. We find that:

 1. The parties have put nc linitations upon the duration of a temporary force reduction in the Rule negotiated in 1970. ,~..,

 2. Implicit in the Rule (.'Article II of the April 24, 1970 National. Agreement) is good faith on the part of the Carrier.

4. We do not believe that the reinstatement in this case was unreasonable or contrary tc the Rule.

 This Board must make its position clear, however, in that animus generated by a strike will not be permitted expression in the vindictive withholding of work under the open-ended language of this Rule.

      Claim denied.


                          NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD By Order of Second Division


Attest: .
        Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 21st day of November, 1972. _