Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMETaT BOARD Award No.
7377
SECOND DIVISION Docket No.
7297
2-SLSW-CM-'77
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Abraham Weiss when award was rendered.
( System Federation No.
45,
Railway Employer'
( Department, A. F. of L. - C. I. 0.
Parties to Dispute:
( (carmen)
(
( St. Louis Southwestern Railway Company
Dispute: Claim of Fmployes:
1. That the St. Louis Southwestern Rail-may Company violated the terns
of the controlling agreement when it furloughed Carmen An ren"GiCes
R. Smith, 0. R. Davis, J
. v; . r
_entle, G. Moore, Jr. . R. D. Lunsi'ord
and L . F . Q,ualls without f 1_ve ( 5 ) days advance notice.
2.
That the St. Louis Southwestern Railway Cor.pan;;- be ordered to
compensate Cam, ~:pprenticos R. Srith, 0. R. Davis, J. ~~1. Yent.le,
G. Moose, Jr., R. D. Lunsford, and L.. F. Qualls in the amount of
forty
(40)
hours' pay each at the pro rata rate.
Finding s:
The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and
all the evidence, f.nds that
The carrier or carriers and the employ a or employes involved in this
disL,ate are respc tivel y carrier arid employe within the meaning of the
Railway Labor Act as approved June 21,
1934.
This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdict;~.on over the dispute
involve,-! herein.
Parties to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearir4,- thereon.
On December
17, 10,74,
Carrier posted Bulletin ~To.
nf,~9
stating that
effective 7:00 a.m., Deceriber
24, 197+, 16
carmen ,,ositions would be abolished.
The novice, in comph_~a.nce -vi.th ~~ule 13 o~.~' tF:e Cax:en's A.Jreement, listed th-e
names of the
9
employees involved, the remaining 7 positions having proviously
been blanked. Bulletin =o.
659
s-;as addressed to "C,~-.rmen and F. C. ,;elder,"
listed by number the positions to be a:bol islred. and the
9
individuals then
occupying these positions.
On Deceriae;c 24,
197:
the six carmen apprentices, hercimf''i;e~r~ referred.
to as Clairlanrs, were notified in writing that they would ire iurlougt-!ed
effective
7:
CO a.m., Decmber
26, 191+,
"account of being displaced by
senior exnployees".
Form l Award ilo.
7377
Page 2 Docket No.
7297
2-SLSW-CM-'77
The Organization, on claimants' behalf, contends that the failure to
give the named apprentices five
(5)
working days notice before the effective
date of their furlough was in violation of Rule
18-3,
which reads as follows:
"If the force is to be reduced, four
(4)
days' notice*
will be given to the employees affected before reduction is
made, and list
vrill
be furnished the local committee."
The Organization further contends that apprentices, by virtue of their
training schedules, have never been subject to bid and job assignment rules
(Rule 12) and, therefore, are not su'oject to displacement under Rule 21 of
the Agreement, which reads, in part, as follows:
"21-2. When an employee is displaced through no fault
of his own, he shall be permitted to displace any
employee junior to him in his seniority district
provided written
application
is made within five
(5)
days to the officer in charge, with copy to the Local
Committee, othenTise he frill be considered iarloughed."
In any event, Organization maintains, the Local Committee never received
written applications by the displaced ::n!plo4rees to displace the cla_'_r"_ants.
Furthermore, the argument runs, since the Seniority Rule (Rate 20) does
not establish a seniority district for apprentices, apprentices are not
subject to the exercise of seniority rights as outlined in Rale 21-2.
Carrier, on the other hand, asserts that its posted Bulletin 11o.
659
is in compliance with the requirement of Rule
18-3
quoted alcove, in providing
a 5-day notice to employ°e.s affected; that these affected ci.ployees exercised
their seniority in accordance with Rule 21-2 as a result of which exercise,
they displaced the most junior employees--the six apprentice claimants.
Carrier states that some of the car:nen affected by tre Deceniber 17 furlough
notice were up=raged apprentices temporarily promoted to fill careen
positions that were being abolished. After not:i:i'i cation that their
positions were being abolished, these upgraded apprentices notified Carrier
of their desire to revert to apprentice status and displace junior apprentices
effective Dece.ber 24, in line with Rule 21-2, Rule 21-2, Carrier insists,
permits te:r.rora.rily promoted apprentices to return to their former position.
Carrier adds that no f-Zither
furlough
notice, due to subsequent
bumping or displacement, eras required and that the Agreement was not
violated thereby.
Rule
f)-3
was modified by Article III of the June
5,
1962 Agreement
between the parties to requi~e five
(5)
working days' notice before "the
abolishment of a position or reduction in force".
Foam 1 Award
NO,
7377
Page
3
Docket No.
7297
2-SIzSW-CM- `77
Rule
18-3,
as modified by Article II of the June
5, 1962
Agreement,
explicitly states that "if the force is to be reduced", five
(5)
days`
notice will be given "to the employees affected before reduction is made".
In the case before us, the question is: were claimants "employees affected"
so as to receive the five days' notice required by fine
18-3?
We hold that claimants were not so entitled and that the Carrier did
not violate Rule
18-3.
Prior Board rulings in similar situations involving smilax rules have
generally come to the sans conclusion; namely, chat the five-day notice is
not required for employees bur.2pod or displaced by senior employees who have
received the requisite notice of a reduction in force or abolition of their
positions.
In denying the claim, the Board in Second Division Award
l~TO.
227+
(Wenke) stat~ed:
"It is the Organization's thought that the words `men affected',
as used in Rule 22(b j ; and of ~~,hora a list is to be ilzrnished
the local co:iLuit.teo, includes all
employees
affected thereby
whether because o% the fact ti~at their positions are being
abolished or because of the fact that they are besn- displaced,
in the exercise o' their seniority, by those whose
Positions
are
being abolished. Occy.~.,tiot;s of positions bein:,
abolished
in
a reduction of ='orce by the carrier may either Jay off or
exercise se.ZioriCy as per Bale
24
of the: parties' asreemetit.
See Rule 22(a) thereof. 'V.'e thin. the la:rFaaSe used in nW1e
22( b ) should be ari)lied to the subject of the bulletin to which
it relates. In that sense the 'men affected' are those ;chose
positions are being abolished. If we .,Te,-,-e to er_t;end. its
meaning, beyond that subject, and relate it to all eiployees
who might become affected b~:cause of the fact that the men
whose positions .acre being abolished might have and would
exercise their seniority, vac would place on the Carrier an
almost imrosszale, and ceutairrly an impractical requirement,
for Carrier i.Tould then heve to antic-pate what each employee
was going to do. We do no
-U
think such as ei the r the intent,
,
meaning or purpose of the 1an6uage used..
Second Division Award
x+089
(Johnson) followed the rationale of Award
227+
.finding:
"The Rlzles contain no such provision; nor do they require seven
days' notice to employees
bumped,
or seven days' delay before
the senior employees can receive the benefit of their
seniority rights.
Foam 1
Page
4
Award No. 7377
Docket No.
7297
2-ShSW-CM-'77
"The causes of Nation's and Beal's displacements were the
respective elections by two senior employees to bump them.
Since these causes intervened bet-vreen them, the force reduction
and the displacements do not constitute cause and effect, and
these claimants cannot be held to have been affected by the
reduction itself. If they were affected by it, within the meaning
of the rule, so were the employees their may have then displaced,
and so on indefinitely. We necessarily hold that the employees
affected, within the. meaning of Rule 16(b), were those directly
concerned.
This concerns with Awards
227+
and
3591,
in which this Division
also held that notice of the positions abolished is notice. to
all other employees of tLei.r displacement by their seniors,
if any, among the employees named."
See also Second Division AzTaxd 'Hos.
55+7
(Dugan),
6805
(Eischen), and
685.9
( Zu.'nas ) to the same effect. This Board is of the opinion that the
reasoning of these awards
JiLs
sound and coreurs in the results.
A W A R D
Claim denied.
Attest: rxecutive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
NATiOINA_L
RAILROAD
ADaTSTKD7T BOARD
By Order of Second division
ttO~ei,i~i,t'~t.'.
LraSCYl - :oG:fninlSi.~4?,Tri"J'e:
t1SS1St'd,nt
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this l)+th day of October,
1977.