Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 7327
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 7188
2-RDG-CM-`77
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee James C. McBrearty 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 Em ployes:
1. That the Carrier violated the terms of the current agreement when
notice dated November 27, 197+, was posted notifying all employees
in the Reading Car Shops, Reading Company, Reading, Pennsylvania,
that all positions would not work on Friday, 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 Employes' Exhibit G, G-2, G-3,
at eight (8) hours pay, at the pro rata rate of pay for each
employee plus
l-e,
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 for 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.
Form 1 Award No. 7327
Page 2 Dock t No. 7188 .,rr~
2-RDG-CM-'77
Article II (a) of this Agreement provides:
"(a) Rules, agreements or practices, however established,
that require advance notice to employees before temporarily
abolishing positions ox 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, any 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
inpact of this strike in the coal industry, Carrier was forced to curtail
expenses, and relies upon the decision as found in Award Nos. 6411, 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 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, are directly attributable to the work stoppage
('labor dispute') and not other causes."
See also Second Division Awards 6611, 583+, 5817, x+1+12 and 4113, as well as
Third Division Award No. 21262 (Blackwell). However, the claim will not
be sustained as regards Claimants Curtis
R.
D. Colbert and Scott N. McCalham.
Moreover, there is no provision in the applicable Rules Agreement or else
where which warrants the allowance of interest as claimed. That portion of ~;,
paragraph No. 2 of the Claim of Employes is denied.
Form 1
Page
3
A W A R D
Claim sustained as per findings.
Attest: Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjix tment Board
Award No. 7327
Docket No.
7188
2-RDG-CM-'77
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
By -Z
rtes
~~-~-~ r/~~-''
~osemarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant
Dated( at Chicago, Illinois, this 12th day of July, 1977.