Foam 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No.
7414
SECOND DIVISION Docket No.
73+9
2-MKT-CM-
t
77
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee James C. McBreax~ty when award was rendered.
( System Federation No. 8, Railway Employes'
Department, A. F. of L. - C. 1.0.
Parties to Dispute: ( (Carmen)
(
( Missauxi-Kansas-Texas Railroad Company
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
1. That under the current Agreement Cayman J. L. Bridges was unjustly
dealt with when Cayman R. J. Cru.nk was placed on the seniority
roster by the Carrier senior to him.
2. That accordingly the Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad Company at
Bellmead, Texas, be ordered to place J. L. Bridges on seniority
roster senior to R. J. Crunk.
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 ox 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.
This Board finds that the request of Petitioner to revise the seniority
roster to show a seniority date of July
31, 1969,
in the Cayman's classification for a one R. J. Crunk, Be7.lsnead Car Department, Waco, Texas, has not
been timely made under Rule 23 of the Agreement.
The applicable and controlling part of Rule
23,
Seniority, reads as
follows:
"The seniority lists wi11 be prepared from the Company's record
as of January 1st of each year for each craft and subdivision
thereof and will be posted and open for protest fox a period of
sixty (60) days after the posting of each roster. Coami.ttees
will be furnished with copies."
Form 1 Award No. 7414
Page 2 Docket No. 73+9
2-MKT-CM-'77
The record before us shows that seniority rosters for the Bellmead
Car Department, Waco, Texas, have listed R. J. Crunk with seniority date of
July 26, 1969, as Carman on each seniority roster published on January 1st,
for the years 1971, 1972, 1973, 197+, 1975 and 1976.
Petitioner alleges that its protest dated February 2, 1976, is a
timely protest of the January 1, 1976 seniority roster showing a seniority
date of July 26, 1969, as Cain for R. J. Crank. However, we do not agree.
Article 23 provides the seniority lists will be prepared as of January 1st
each year for each Craft, and will be posted and open for protest for a period
of 60 days after the posting of each roster, otherwise it will became
permanent.
Rule 23, it may be noted, provides that the list will be revised each
year and that, if not protested in 60 days, it shall be deemed permanent.
This surface contradiction, providing for flexibility and rigidity at one
and the same time, can be resolved and harmonized if we bear in mind the
objectives of the parties. The seniority roster is carnpiled to have an
unimpeachable source of authority upon which to base decisions in which
seniority may be involved. This authority must be established in advance
if quarreling and bickering over relative standing is to be avoided at the
time it is called into use. The parties had two major concerns in the
establishment of the roster. First, there had to b e recognition that the
composition of any
work
force varies from time to time as old employes-drop
out or transfer to other jobs and as new employes are added. Management
must make periodic revisions if the list is to reflect these inevitable
changes. The parties must also have foreseen that in making revisions
there would always be the possibility of error. This possibility was their
second concern. It was solved by giving the employes a limited time in
which to call attention to an error and have it corrected. Thus the needs
of Management to revise and the employes to correct having been provided
for, and both having been exercised, the list was then to become permanent.
The permanency contemplated by the parties could not mean that
Management might not thereafter revise it, for this would be a direct
contradiction of the provision calling for yearly revision. It was to be,
however, permanent in other respects, and it precludes the right of an
employe to enter a protest once the initial time limit of 60 days has
elapsed.
Sixty days after it has been established, leaking a protest, the
seniority roster becomes permanent and unchaLlengeable in the future,
except that Management may revise it in January of each year. Thereafter,
employes may challenge the list only insofar as the revision constitutes
a change from the ear before and this challenge must be made within the
allotted 0 days by the employes aggrieved or the right to do so is forever
lost. (See Third Division Award No.
12297;
Second Division Award No.
1958;
and First Division Award No. 12
782).
Foam 1
Page
3
Award No.
747-4
Docket No.
73+9
2-NKT-CM-
'77
Therefore, we axe barred by the foregoing fxarn considering the case
on its merits.
A W A R D
Claim dismissed.
Attest: Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT
BOARD
By Order of Second Division
BY .~1~' ~
os rie Bxasch - Administrative Assistant
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 2nd day of December,
1977
'"Wool