Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 6673
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 6557
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Irwin M. Lieberman when award was rendered.
( System Federation No. 30, Railway Employes'
( Department, A. F. of L. - C. I. 0.
Parties to Dispute: ( (Electrical Workers)
( The Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
That the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company violated the
provisions of Rule 24(b) of the controlling agreement
as
amended by Article III of the Agreement of June 5, 1962, when
they arbitrarily withheld Electrician Helper W. E. Bishop, Jr..
Apprentice Electricians P. L. Shahan and R. L. Bowman from the
service of the Carrier commencing on June 3, 1971, without
according the claimants their contractual rights under the
Force Reduction Rule.
That accordingly, the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad be ordered
to compensate Claimants, W. E. Bishop* Jr.,, P. L. Shahan and
R. L. Bowman five (5) days pay each, at the applicable pro
rata rate of pay in their respective work classification.
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. .
Parties to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing
thereon.
On October 3, 1971 Claimants herein were furloughed as a result
of strikes by coal.miners and dock workers. Petitioner agrees that
the furloughs were made in conformity with the provisions of Article
II of Public Law 91-226 effective February 19, 1970. The strike
ended on November 21, 1971, but Claimants were not recalled. On
December 3, 1971 Claimants were given notices that their temporary
furloughs would be changed to permanent furloughs five working days
laterl on December 10, 1971. The dispute in this matter involves
J
Farm 1
Pa ge 2
Petitioner's contention that Claimants should hav
work the five days following the notice dated Dec
pertinent contract rule reads:. _
"Rule 24 (b) as amended by the June 5, 7.962 A
Advance Notice Requirements.
Effective July 16, 1962, existing rules prov
notice of less than five (S) working days be
abolishment of position or reduction in fore
revised so as to require not less than five
days' advance notice. With respect to emglo
regularly established positions where existi
require advance notice before such position
not less than five (5) working days' advance
given before such positions are abolished.
of Article VI of the August 21, 1954 Agreeme
constitute an exception to the foregoing rec
this Artcile."
The Organization contends that the Rule abo
for not less than five working days' advance not
stated that. since a furloughed employee has no
5
order to effect a five days' advance notice, th
status must be established.
Carrier argues that there is neither any
Carrier from issuing permanent furlough notice
on temporary furlough, nor any rule requiring
temporarily furloughed employees to work befa
furlough notices.
In Award 1469, dealing with a related p'
"We think the rule contemplates that the
employees to be furloughed in securing
ray be given to them while they are on
absent because of illness, as well as
working their positions."
This reasoning was applied to the sift
instant dispute in Award 6412 and a serie.<
In Award 6412, we said:
"It is evident that an advance noticf
already on furlough is not provided
The principle expressed in Award 6412
if
rule support for the gosition.that ernplc
must be brought back to work so that Cap
Form 1
Pa ge 3
Award No. 6673
Docket No. 6557
2-B&O-EW-t 74
A W A R D
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
Attest: Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
R semarie Brasch
A
ministrative Assistant
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 17th day of April, 1974.