1
t
9
w
y % ~ Form 1 NATIONAL
RAILROAD
ADJUSTMENT HOARD Award No. 6 745
SECOND DIVISION Docket No.
6499
2-N&W-CM-' 74
The Second Division ecasisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Irving T. Hergman when award was rendered.
( System Federation No. 16, Railway Employee'
{ Department, A. F. of L. -C. I. 0.
Parties to Dispute: { (Carmen)
{
( Norfolk and Western Railway Company
Dispute: Claim of Employes:'
1. That the Norfolk and Western Railway Company violated the
Agreement of April 24, 1970, when they deprived tie employee
named herein below, reporting for duty on June 15, 19'T1., four
(4) hours pay at the straight time rate, who were affected
by as emergency force reduction notice posted on the bulletin
boards at Williamson, West Virginia between the hours of
2:45 p.m. and 3:15 p.m.
Carmen Apprentice Eelper
~ Charles Tractor L. J. Christina W. J. Curry
W. C. Paisley R. E. hockard
R. E. Scott J. W. Young
R. 8. Blackburn Kentyeth West
W. Y. Duty Donald Varney
T. E. Bloomer. D. L. Syck
E. L. Robinette Donald Helvey
Clayton West J. R. Davis
Joseph Mamrno ,
E. M. Farley ,
Ray
('hafy na
D. I. Runyon.
C. M. Trimett
Foaso Elsxick
Dewey Runyon
Tw-jman Francis
F. M. Colegrove
Joe Reed
F. R. May
Raymond Syck
Luther Young
Clifford Pinson
B. G. Marcum.
Clifford Heat
James W. Blackburn
,
Form 1 Award. No. 6745
Page
2
Docket No.
6+99
2-N8de1-CM-' 74
2. That accordingly., the Norfolk and Western Railway Company
be ordered to compensate the above named employee in the
amount of four
(4)
hours at the applicable straight time rate
of pay for June 15, 1971.
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 employee involved in
this dispute are respectively carrier and employe within the meaning
of the Railway Labor Act as approved June
21, 193.
This Division of
the Adjustment
Hoard has jurisdiction over the
dispute involved herein.
Parties to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing
thereon.
On June 14, 1971 coal miners went on strike is the area where this
claim arose. Consequently, the Carrier furloughed the claimants. The
furlough notices were posted at-2:45 P.M. for the 3:00 P.M. shift at
the Transpartat3an Yard and at 3:00 P.M. foot the 3:30 P.M, shift at
.` the Shop Track. This is not contradicted in the Record, the Carrier
stating: "A11 reasonable methods of communication, radio and telephone,
were used to notify the employes of the furlough." The Organization
claim
ss that twelve named employees reported for work at the Transportation
Yard for the 3:00 P.M. shift because they were mot notified before they
lent home for work; twenty two named employee reported at the Shop
Track for their 3:30 P.M. shift because they mere not previously notified.
The parties agree that Article II of the April
24, 1970
Agreement
is applicable. It
provides that
no advance notice is required for
temporary force reductions in emergencies such as labor disputes
. provided that carrier's operations are suspended in whole or in pert.
This Article further provides that any affected employe who, "---reports
for work for his position without having been previously notified not
to report, shall receive four hours' pay at the applicable rate for his
position."
The Carrier contends that only three employee reported for work.
The Organization submitted a statement dated December 8, 19'2 signed by
eleven employee to the effect that they had no prior notice, reported
for work as usual and were told that they were furloughed. A statement
of the
same
date was signed by twenty one employee to the
same
effect
except that the notice was posted and no one
was
at the shop track to
whom they could. report.
Fore 1
Pa ge 3
Award No. 6745
Docket No. 6499
2-N&W-CM-' 74
There are conflicting claims as to how many employee appeared for
work and no way to nettle this from convincing proof in the Record.
A reasonable approach from information in the Record leads to the
following
rationale: Although the Carrier stated that it attempted
to
notify all the employee to be furloughed, only eleven names were stated
specifically
as having been notified, in the Carrier's letter dated
June 21, 1972. The Organization did not respond to this definite
statement for approximately six months. We are inclined to credit the
Carrier's statement that prior notice of furlough was given to these
eleven named men. The general statement as to notice
to
other employes
is not convincing. Primarily for this reason we would grant the claim
of
the remaining employee. In the absence
of
an explanation for six
months' delay in rebutting the Carrier's statement that eleven named
employee were notified, less weight is given to the fact than these
eleven employee signed the statement to the contrary.
The claim shall be sustained as to the employes who signed the
statements, Organization Exhibits A and B, and denied as to the
employes named
in the
Carrier's
letter,
Carrier's Exhibit D.
A WA R D
Claim disposed of as stated above.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
Attest: Executive Secretary
National
Railroad
Adjustment Board
8y
tsemarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 30th day of July, 1974.
mo
logo