Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No.
7194
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 7085-I
2-SP(T&L)-I-' 76
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Joseph
A.
Sickles when award was rendered.
( Kenneth 0. Hay
(
Parties to Dispute:
( Southern Pacific Transportation Company
( (`rexas and Louisiana Lines)
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
-
Kenneth Hay, carman was cut off with two others in a force reduction
June
30, 1967
by Southern Pacific. A claim was presented to the
Carrier (E. C. Wolff to J. D. Davis Sept.
25, 1967)
under the Washington
Job Agreement, Sept.
25, 1964,
Article I Section 2, Items (d) lease and
purchase of equipment and (f) Technological Changes.
Southern Pacific claimed a decline in business and no Technological.
Changes (J. D. Davis to E. C.,Wolff, Oct.
16, 1967)
On June
16, 1975
a letter was sent to Mr. Biaggini which he sent
to Mr. Davis about Rule
24
(when it becomes necessary to reduce expenses
each point, shop, department or subdivision thereof shall be considered
separately...,) Because Hearne or Texas was riot suffering a decline
this rule was also broken.
Findings:
The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and
aJ_l 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.
Parties to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing thereon.
This dispute deals with a reduction in force and an assertion that
technological changes, rather than a decline in business, caused the
reduction.
The Carrier asserts that; the claim is barred because it was not appealed
to this Board within the contractually prescribed time limits and because
we do not have jurisdiction over the dispute.
Form 1
Page
2
Award No.7194
Docket No.
7085-T
2-SPIT&L)-I-'76
We
do not feel that it is necessary to consider the time limit argument
inasmuch as our review of the record compels us to concur with Carrier's
jurisdictional assertion.
A review of the September
25,
1964 Agreement clearly shows that
jurisdiction over disputes dealing with the application of employee protection
of the nature presented in this case, lies solely with the Shop Craft
Special Board of Adjustment (Public Law Board
570).
See Second Division
Award
5667.
Accordingly, this Board is without jurisdiction to consider
the merits of the dispute.
A W A R D
Claim dismissed.
Attest: Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Oraer of Second Division
B
'toAemarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 3rd day of December, 1976.