C:\AWARDS\OUT\2-07315.htm

Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 7315 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 7158 2-WP-MA-'77

The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee David P. Twomey when award was rendered.

( International Association of Machinists ( and Aerospace Workers Parties to Dispute: ( ( Western Pacific Railroad Company Dispute: Claim of Employes:

1. That the Carrier violated Rule 25 (c) of the current working Agreement when it improperly recalled junior Machinist L. T Wright to work at Oroville Diesel Facility, Oroville, Calif., violating the seniority rights of senior Machinist J. W. Corbin (hereinafter referred to as claimant).

2. That, accordingly, the Carrier be ordered to additionally compensate

Claimant for eight

(8)

hours at pro rata rate of pay for

February 27, 1975, March 2, 1975, March

1975, March 9, 1975,

March 19, 1975 through March 23, 1975 inclusive, March 27, 1975

through April 2, 1975 inclusive and April 5, 1975 a total. of

seventeen days.

That the Carrier be ordered to additionally compensate Claimant for eight (8) hours pro rata rate of pay for each of five (5) days that he was not given notice before reduction in work force when it violated Rule 25(d) of the controlling Agreement.

Findings: The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that: The carrier ox 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.

The Claimant, Machinist J. W. Corbin, was furloughed from his position at Oroville, California in February 197+. On March 4, 197+, the Claimant took a regular Machinist's position at Stockton, California, and held regular positions at Stockton from this date until December 17, 1975, when he was able to again obtain a regular position at Oroville. During the period Form 1 Award No. 7315

Page 2 D2cWPtMA ' 7715 `"~'~,

of time between 197+ and 1975 when the Claimant worked at Stockton, he cormnuted 100 miles each way to work from his home in Oroville. The Organization contends that the Carrier violated Rule 25(c) and (d) and Rule 29 of the current working Agreement when it improperly recalled Junior Machinist Mr. L. T. Wright at Oroville to fill certain temporary vacancies and vacation vacancies. The Organization contends that the Agreement must be construed as a whole and that the Claimant should have had all options at Oroville that flow with his seniority at that point. T )e Carrier contends that when the Claimant accepted the temporary transf~r to Stockton .pursuant to Rule 27, then his home point seniority could only be exercised to return to the home point when forces were increased as expressly provided for in that Rule. The contention that Mr. L. T. Wright was fully employed as a Cayman at Oroville was not handled on the property and is not properly before this Board.

Rule

states:

"Temporary Transfer of Furloughed Employes

While forces are reduced, if men are needed at other .,,

.points, furloughed men will be given preference to

transfer, with privilege or .returning to home station

when force is increased, such transfer to be made without

expense to the company, seniority to govern."

We find that this rule specifically deals with the circumstances of the instant case. The Claimant was furloughed in February, 197-. A person was needed at Stockton, and the Claimant was offered and accepted a transfer to Stockton. The rule is clear and unambiguous that the Claimant retained the privilege to return to home station "when force is increased". There was no increase in forces during this period of time in question. It is a well settled standard of contract interpretation that specific rules will prevail over general rules. Rule 27 was clearly and unambiugously written for the purpose of giving fall employment to employees affected by reduction of forces. Rule 27, a special rule, did not grant employees the right to fill temporary vacancies at their home station while fully employed at the point of transfer. A reading of the Agreement as a whole, including Rule 25 in its entirety and Rule 29, does not lead to a conclusion that the Claimant had the contractual right to fill temporary vacancies at Oroville while smilutaneously exercising his option for full employment under Rule 27 at Stockton. We therefore will deny this claim.

11

Form 1 Award No. 7315 Page 3 Docket No. 7158 2-WP-MA-'77

A W A R D

Claim denied. NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD By Order of Second Division Attest: Executive Secretary National Railroad Adjustment Board By _ . ~.c~, ~ . Wit. semarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant Dated I at Chicago, Illinois, this 5th day of July, 177. Ik ,moo*