Form 1 _NAT.IONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No.
6805
F:,~i ' ~~ ;.~: ,. SECOND
DIVISION Docket No.
6616
,~. ~~;s~. i 2-WM-CM-'
75
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Dana E. Eischen when award was rendered.
. ( System Federation No. 30, Railway Employes'
( Department, A. F. of L. - C. I. 0.
Parties to Dispute: ( (Carmen)
(
_ ( Western Maryland Railway Company
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
(1) That under the current agreement the Carrier improperly issued
a one (1) day furlough notice in lieu of the required five (;
days on August 21,
1972
to Claimants C. L. Jaynes, C. D.
Uhazie, B. R. Kurutz and P. Siesky.
(2) That the Carrier be ordered to make whole the claimants in the
amount of four (4) additional days at the appropriate rate of
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.
Parties to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing
thereon.
On kugust
14, 1972
Carrier posted Bulletin Numbers 4 and
378
addressed "To Employees Concerned". These bulletins carried the names
of five
(5)
employes whose positions were abolished effective
August
21, 1972.
One of the
5
employes listed in these bulletins was
Mr. C. L. Jaynes who is one of the four
(4)
claimants herein.
Subsequently, on August
20, 1972
Jaynes and each of the other
claimants herein received identical furlough forms from Carrier reading,
in pertinent part, as follows: "Account of reduction in forces you are
f'zrloughed gffective close of work August
21, 1972,
from the services of
the Western Maryland Railroad Company, subject to Furlough or Reduction
in Force Rules."
y Form 1 Award No.
6805
Page 2 Docket No.
6616
2-WM-CM-'
75
The Organization on behalf of claimants contends that the foregoing
constitutes a violation of Rule
23(2),
which reads, in part, as follows:
"(2)
Five working days' advance notice will be given
to employes affected before the abolishment of
positions or reduction in force, and list of employes
affected will be furnished to the local committee.
Carrier on the other hand, asserts that the notices of August
7, 1972
were sufficient for purposes of Rule
23(2),
that no further furlough
notice due to subsequent bumping, was required and that the Agreement
was not violated thereby.
Each of the parties have presented Awards in support of their
respective positions. We note that the weight of authority is not
unanimous on this point, but we believe that the better reasoned
precedent cases hold that the 5-day advance notice is not required for
employes bumped by senior employes whose positions had been abolished
after due notice to them. See Awards
2274, 3591, 4089, 5547.
The Organization contends that a Carrier cannot avoid the impact of
a furlough and force reduction notice by abolishment, particularly where
the Agreement, as here, specifically states that the notice requirement
goes to abolishment _or reduction in force. (Emphasis added) We cannot
disagree with that proposition as an abstract principle, but the instant
case is not such a situation as the Organization seeks to proscribe. This
case is more akin to our earlier Awards wherein a senior employe, after
due notice, has his job abolished and then bumps a junior man in the
orderly exercise of seniority. The net effect is that the junior man is
displaced in a chain reaction effect that may or may not lead back to
the original abolishment. In these situations we cannot say that such
secondarily affected employes were intended to be covered by the notice:
requirements before seniority can be exercized.
Turning to the merits of the instant case, the record shows that
Claimants Uhazie, Kurutz and Siesky each were displaced by one of the
senior employes whose jobs had been abolished pursuant to the proper
notice given in Bulletins
4
and
378.
As we have held on several occasions,
notice of positions abolished is, in these circumstances, notice to other
employes of their possible displacement by their seniors, if any, among;
the employes named in the bulletin. Award
2274, 3591, 4089.
Accordingly,
the claim as to Uhazie, Kurutz and Siesky cannot stand.
As for Claimant Jaynes, his name was on the abolishment notice of
August
14, X972,
he was an employee directly affected and he thus received
five working days' notice which is all the Agreement requires.
I
Form 1
Page 3
Award No. 6805
Docket No.
6616
2-WM-Cps-'75
A W A R D
Claim denied.
Attest: Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
4
By
C/2
~ I
e,
e, 4e
osemaarie Bla-&sch - Administrative Assistant
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 6th day of January,
1975.