(Advance copy. The usual printed copies will be sent later.)
Form 1 NATIONAL t'f1ILFOAD ADJUSnT-W BOARD Award No.
6435
SECGlID DVISION Docket No.
6295
2-SCL-CM-'73
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Irving T. '.Bergman when award. wa,s rendered.
(. System Federation No. 42, Railway Employes'
( Department, A. F. of L. - C
.
I. 0.-
Parties to-Dispute: ( (Carmen)
( Seaboard. Coast Line Pailroad Company
.Dispute : Claim of Errploye s
1. That under the provisions of the current agreement, Carman W. T. Gibson,
was improperly denied compensation for ;4ay 17 and
18, 1971.
2. That accordingly the Carrier be ordered to pay the aforesaid employee the
difference between what he receVed for jury duty these days, and what he
would have received. on his reglzlar assigned position in accord with
mediation agreement September 2,
1969,
Article
3.
'ind ings
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.
Parties to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing thereon.
Claimant, a carman, was on jury duty May 17 and. May 18. Under ordinary
circumstances, he would have received his regular p:ay less the amount paid to him
for jury duty. On May 17 and on May 18, the Signalmen were on strike and had
placed pickets at shop en trances where claimant eras employed. No other carmen
at the shop crossed the picket line on May 17 and 18.
The Organization claims pay for claimant for the two days in dispute pursuant
to Article III of September 2,
1969,
Mediation Agreement, in effect at the time.
The Carrier refused to pay for the two days. It argued that claimant would
not have actually lost time as required under "Jury Duty", Article III of the
''ediation Agrgement, because he would not have crossed the picket line to work.
Form 1
Page 2
Award No.
6435
Docket No.
6295
2-SCL-CM-'73
Carrier claims that the Organization's traveling representative had. stated during
the strike that, "We would not expect our members to cross picket lines at the
peril of life and limb." This has not been denied in the Employes' Rebuttal.
We are not stating a personal opinion in recognizing that claimant would not
have "scabbed." to cross a picket line being observed by his brother carmen and his
Organization. The history of the Trade Union Movement bears this out. It is well
set forth in Second Division Award. No.
4494,
and recognized in Third. Division.
Award No. 18715. The petition does not set forth
awy
proof to the contrary.
That claimant was off duty because of his Jury Duty, does not automatically
prove that he had. actually lost time and pay from his regular work under these
facts. No claim is made that this employe would. have crossed the picket line to work
on May 17
and on May 13, if he was
not
on jury duty.
A
W A R D
Clain Denied.
Attest
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
/d&A--e44~
Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago,
Illinois.,
this 11th day of Jara,Tary, 1973 .