C:\AWARDS\OUT\2-07443.htm

Form 1 TATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTi·1-17111,"I' BOARD Award 1?0 . 7~f-L3 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 7208 2-MP-ivA-' 78

The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee ~~dalter C . Wallace when award was rendered.

( International Association of Machinists

( and Aerospace Workers

Fatties to Dispute: (

( Missouri Pacific -Railroad Company

Dispute: Claim of Employes:

1. That the Missouri Pacific Railroad Company violated the Note to

Rule

5

of the controlling Agreement effective June 1,

1960

when they

denied the employees at Kansas City, Missouri five

(5)

days' notice

in which to prepare a holiday work list.

2. That accordingly, the Missouri Facific Railroad Company be ordered

to compensate Machinists S. L. -Fiburn, A.

Try.

Bird, R. A. Raines,

S. L. Edwards, G. C. Torkelson, J.

Woods, J. B. Lykins, S. H. Law,

R. L. Clark, R. D. HuffInan, A. Waterm_an, W. H. Asbill, R. E. Green,

J. Biesley and D. A. Howell and Machinist Helpers S. G. Arney, R.- j.

Ealy and A. E. Russell eight

(8)

hours each at the pro rata rate of

pay for three

(3)

days.

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 di spute 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.

Fatties to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing thereon.

This is a dispute concerning the proper application of the "dote" to Rule 5 of the agreement between the parties, which reads as follows:

"NOTE: Notice ir~ 11 b e posted five ( 5 ) days preceding

a holiday listing the names of e-mployes assigned to

work on the holiday. Men will be assigned from the

men on each shiy't who would have the day on -rf=ich

the holiday falls as a day of their assigr.-ent if ;,ire

holiday had rot occurred and :-ill protest the wor'_2.

Local Cordttee ·,.rii.l ~oe advised of the number of men

reaui red and

Taill

f u?°nish ?tames of the men to be

assigned but i n tile event of failure to furnish

sufficient employer to complete the require_r:ents, the

junior men on each shift will be assigned beginning

with the unicr man."

Foam 1 Award No. 7443 Page 2 Docket No. 7208 _

2-MP-MA-'78

On December 17, 197-, Claimants were notified by Bulletin TTo. 118 that they would work on Christmas Day. ',7e note that in actuality, this constituted an eight (8) day advance notice. However, a few days later, Carrier says that it had received additional information from other railroads operating in the area about their holiday operating plans and, as a result, it was necessary for Carrier to reduce the actual number of employer working on the holiday. Therefore, on December 21, 197+, the Local Chairman was advised by the Carrier to prepare a new reduced list of employer who would work Christmas Day. This new list was posted on December 23, 197+, by Bulletin ado. 120, which served to cancel or amend Bulletin No. 118, supra. Of significance is the fact that all of the Claimants herein included as part of the reduced work force in the supplemental Bulletin -,,To. 120 had also been scheduled to work on Bulletin No. 118. The noticeable difference between the two bulletins is that some of the employer originally scheduled to work in Bulletin ~To. 118 were deleted from that list in Bulletin No. 120. Under the circumstances herein, and considering the manner in which the claim is drafted and presented to this Board, we fail to see how the Claimants presented by the Petitioner (who actually received more than a five (5) day notice) have any cause of action arising from an alleged breach of the "Note'' to Rule 5 0=" the agreement. We think that if any employes would have legitimate cause to co=lain, i t would be those employes who here originally scheduled to work on the holiday and, as a result of Carrier's belated change in estimati:~ its required work force, were not notified until Deceniaex 23, 197 that they would not work the holiday. However, those employes axe not the Claimants herein, and on the state of the record as it has been progressed to us, we find no violation of the agreement with respect to those employes named as Claimants. In reviewing the "NOTE" to Rule 5, we conclude that it imposes mutual responsibilities upon both local management and local union representatives to have a notice posted five (5) days preceding a holiday listing the names of employer assigned to work on the holiday. Local Management must make a good faith and objective determination of its, actual required work force on the holiday and provide that information to the Local Co~ittee in time so that it may furnish the names of employer who will work and that the list may then be posted within the five (5) day period. While we recognize that it may be difficult for Carrier to make an adequate determination of actual service requirements for holiday work until shortly before the holiday, the "NOTE" to Rule 5 was negotiated in good faith between the parties and, of course, must be complied with. T^7e think that a sbirit of cooperation between the parties at the local level will make operation o= the procedures required under the "TOTE'? to Rule 5 go smoothly and obviate any future disputes. h V; A R D Clam dismissed. Form 1 Award ~To . 71+x+3 page 3 Docket 7.1,To. 7208 2_1MP_oA_ f 78 !~Tr1TI0ML RAILROAD ADvT7S'?'P~iaL' BOARD By Order of Second Division Attest: Executive Secretary ~dational Railroad Adjustment Board __ ~; r _,,Rosemarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant Dated at' Chicago, Illinois, this 24th day of January, 1978.