Foam 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 7326
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 7187
2-RDG-CM-t77
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee James C. McBreaxty when award was rendered.
( System Federation No. 109, Railway Employes'
( Department, A. F. of L. - C. I. 0.
Parties to Dispute: ( (Carmen)
( Reading Company
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
1- That the Carrier violated the terms of the current agreement when
notice dated November 26, 197+, was posted notifying all employees
in the Reading Locomotive Shop, Reading Company, Reading,
Pennsylvania, that only certain positions would work on November
29, 197+ and all employees not listed would not work on November
29, 197+ and did not provide for five working days advance notice
as required by the rules of the current controlling agreement.
2- That the Carrier be ordered to compensate all Carmen Craft
employees, listed as Claimants in Employee's Exhibit E at eight
(8) hours pay, at the pro-rata rate of pay for each employee plus
l-21%
interest per month, from date of original claim on January 21,
1975.
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, 193..
This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute
involved herein.
Parties to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing thereon.
Our examination of the record in this case reveals that Carrier
attempted to effect a temporary force reduction at its Reading, Pennsylvania
Locomotive Shops to be effective fox one day only - November 29, 197..
Carrier has alleged that it possessed the right to make this temporary
force reduction as a result of the provisions of Article II (a) of the
National Agreement as made by and between the parties on April 24, 1970.
Foam 1 Award No. 7326
Page 2 Docket No. 7187
2-RDG-CM-'77
Article II (a) of this Agreement provides:
"(a) Rules, agreements ox practices, however established,
that require advance notice to employees before temporarily
abolishing positions or making temporary force reductions
are hereby modified to eliminate any requirement for such
notices under emergency conditions, such as flood, snow
storm, hurricane, tornado, earthquake, fire or labor dispute other than as covered by paragraph (b) below, provided
that such conditions result in suspension of a carrier's
operations in whole ox in part. It is understood and
agreed that such temporary force reductions will be confined solely to those work locations directly affected
by any suspension of operations. It is further understood
and agreed that notwithstanding the foregoing, arty employee
who is affected by an emergency force reduction and 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 situation involved in this instance, precipitating the temporary
force reduction, was the strike of the soft coal industry which began on
November 12, 197+ and continued until December 5, 197+. As a result of the
impact of this strike in the coal industry, Carrier was forced to curtail -
expenses, and relies upon the decision as found in Award Nos. 6+11, 6+12
and 651+ of this Division to support their position.
From the record before us there is no evidence of probative value
advanced by Carrier relative to their assertions that the work at the point
where claimants were employed, was somehow affected by the work stoppage in
the coal industry. Therefore, it is concluded that the Carrier has not
met its burden to prove that the conditions which justify the temporary
abolishment of positions with less than five days' advance notice as permitted
in Article II of the April 24, 1970 Agreement did in fact exist, and the
claim must, therefore, be sustained. See Second Division Award No. 6611
(Lieberman), where it was ruled:
"It should be noted, however, that the burden is
upon Carrier to establish that reduced operations, which
may be interpreted to be a suspension of operations in
part, axe directly attributable to the work stoppage
('labor dispute') and not other causes."
See also Second Division Awards 6611, 583+, 5817, 4412 and x+13, as well as
Third Division Award No. 21262 (Blackwell). However, there is no provision
in the applicable Rules Agreement or elsewhere which warrants the allowance
of interest as claimed. That portion of paragraph No. 2 of the Claim of
Employes is denied.
F orm l Award No.
7326
Page
3
Docket No.
7187
2-RDG-CM-' 77
A W A R D
Claim sustained as per findings.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
Attest: Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
By , ~~rt~z~-
osemarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 12th day of July,
1977.
PV
4·,