Form 1 ''iA.1I07Ah RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOA-RD Award No
. 7445
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 7285-I
2-LI-I-'78
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee David P. Twomey when award was rendered.
( Howard M. Patterson
Parties to Distoute:
(
( Long island Rail Road
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
Petitioner claims that he is entitled to and should be granted
pension credit ="ox services rendered as an employee of Pennsylvania
Railroad prior to the date of his employment by Respondent Long Island
Railroad commenced. The applicable provisions of the Long Island Railroad
Company Pension plan provide that such credit be given to Petitioner.
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 or employes involved in this
dispute are respectively carrier and employe Taithin the meaning of the .
Railway Labor Act as approved June 21,
193+.
This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispu to
involved herein.
Parties to said dispute were liven due notice of hearing thereon.
The Claimant, Howard M. Patterson, ~~zas an employee of the Penn Central
Transportation Company from June
15, 19-5
until August
6, 197.
He was hired
as a Car Inspector by the Long Island Rail Road on 11a
y 3 , 1968,
while continuing to perform fLt11 time service for the Penn Central. His dual employment as a full-time employee of both companies continued until August
o,
197+.
On August 1,
1975,
as he neared his 60th birthday, the Claimant made
application to the Board of Managers of Pensions fox a determination of his
"Credited Service Date" under the Long Island Rail Road
Pension Plan
. As
effective July 1,
1974,
the -plan allows fox "Credited Service" for an
individual's 1oer1CtL of continuous employment ,,nith another cirri er-employer.
provided he transfer directly from such carrier- employer to ez=lo~,ment with
the
Company.
Credit for service prior to
Inlay
3rd,
1968
was disallo~red. The
Claimant then appealed to the Joint Board on Pension Applications for a
review of the decision of the Board of i.Iarlagers. The Joint Board affirmed
the decision of the Board of i~Tanagers.
Form 1 Award No . 74T+5 _
page 2 Docket No. 7286-I
2-LI-I-'78
The Carrier contends that this dispute does not come under the jurisdiction of the National Railroad Adjustment Board; and that the dispute is .
procedurally defective in that it has been progressed to the Board in
violation of the Railway Labor Act, Circular No. 1 of the NRAB, and Rule 53
of the Carmen's Agreement. These contentions axe rejected fox the reasons
set forth in Public Law Board No. 1691, Award No. 5, which Award we do not
find to be in error. See also Public Law Board 18+0, Award No. 8.
The Petitioner contends that the Claimant is entitled to "Credited
Service" toward his Long Island Rail Road Pension based upon his service
with the Pennsylvania Railroad in accordance with the terms of Article I,
Section 4(B)(ii) of the Company Pension Plan. The Carrier disagrees.
The crux of this dispute, Counsel fox the Claimant states, is whether
ox not Petitioner "transferred directly" from another carrier-employer to
service with the Long Island Rail Road. Article I, Section 4(b)(ii)
provides:
"(ii) For a person who is an Employee prior to July 1, 1971,
Credited Service shall also include an individual's period
of continuous employment with another carrier-employer
covered by the Railroad Retirement Act, provided he
transferred directly from such carrier-employer to
employment Taith the Company; and further provided that he
would have received credit for such employment as
Credited Service had such employment been employment
with the Company rather than such carrier-employer during
such period." (Emphasis added)
The Claimant contends that a reasonable and prudent interpretation of the
clause "transferred directly" is that an employee can and should receive
credited service if the employee transferred--that is, went from one employer
to the other--without a dormant period ox break in continuous service. The
Carrier contends "transfer" means leaving one place and going to another;
just as when one transfers from a train, he leaves it to go to another.
We find that the Claimant in the instant case had not "transferred
directly" from the employment of the Penn-Central to the Long Island Rail
Road in may of 1968 or arty date thereafter. The clear, plain and obvious
meaning of "transfer" is to move oneself, as from one location, job or school
to another.
The
Claimant did not "transfer" from the Penn Central to the Long
Island Rail Road in May of 1968, fox he did not move himself from one job
to another job--from the Penn Central to the Long .island--but rather continued
his employment with the Penn Central while ~~rorking the Long Island position.
Clearly the word "transfer" is not in anyway descriptive of the dual employment relationship established in May of 1968 and continued by the Claimant
until ya.gust
6,
197. The language of the Pension Plan is absolutely clear
and unequivocal; and under such circumstances it is well settled that this
Board cannot give language a meaning other than that expressed. while the
F oxm 1 Award i3o. 7445
Page
3
Docket TJo.
7286-I
2-LI-I-'78
Petitioner presents arguments in support of the Petitioner's case based or,
equity and fairness, in order to sustain the claim the Board would have
to rewrite the language of the Flan, and we have no such roTvrex. T~Te axe
compelled to deny this claim.
A
TrJ
A R D
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJITSTP~11IT
BOARD
By Order of Second Division
Attest: Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
y
...~osemaxie Bxasch - Administrative Assistant
Dated at Chicago, Illinois,this 24th day of January,
1978.
1"001