Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 6683
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 6449
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee
Louis Yagoda when award was rendered.
( System Federation No. 41, Railway Employes'
( Department, A.F. of L. - C.I.O.
Parties to Dispute:
f
(Electrical Workers)
( Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
1. That the Chesapeake
and Ohio
Railway Company violated the
current agreements, particularly Mediation Agreement of June
5,
1962 as per Article
3,
and Rule 27, Item
3,
Understanding
Thereof (revised July 16, 1962) and Rule 19(c) of the Shop
Crafts Agreement. The Carrier failed to allow the proper
c
five
(5)
working days advance notice of furlough to Electrician G. A. Rusmiselle account of Foreman Gross returning to
his craft.
2. That, accordingly, the Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company be
ordered to additionally compensate Electrician G. A. Rusmiselle for five
(5)
days pay at the straight time rate due to
this violation of current Agreement.
Findings:
The Second Divison 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 there
. on.
Employes are mistaken in their contention that Article III of the
June
5,
1962 Agreement requires
5
working days advance notice to an
employe who is displaced in his position by a foreman exercising his
right to "bump" downward under Rule 19 (c) of the Shop Crafts Agreement.
- Article III is explicitly applicable to the two specific situations
Form 1
Page 2
Award No.
668:3
Docket No.
6449
2-C&O-EW-'74
identified therein: (1) "abolishment of position" and (2) "reduction in
forces". Both obviously refer to the position in which the employe is
displaced. In the instant situation, Claimant's job was not abolished
or was his craft reduced. True, the vacating of the job was caused by
a reduction in force among the foremen, but that is not within the
subject matter of Article III.
Accordingly, there is no rule mandate for the
5
days' notice in
this situation.
A W A R D
Claim of Employes' denied.
Attest:
Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
os marie Brasch - Administrative Assistant
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 26th day of April, 1974.