Form 1 NATIONAL
RAILROAD ADJUS=J'I' BOARD
Award No.
7+69
SECOM) DIVISION Docket No.
715
2-AT&SF-EW-'78
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Robert A. Franden when award was rendered.
( System Federation No.
97,
Railway Employes'
( Department, A. F. of L. - C. I. C.
Parties to Dispute: ( (Electrical Workers)
( Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
(1) That the Carrier erred and violated the contractual rights to
Mr. C. P. Fischer by failing to recall him to service.
(2) That, therefore, he be recalled, and,
(3)
That he b e compensated fox all lost wages including overtime he
would have worked, and,
(4)
That he be made whole for lost health and welfare benefits;
retirement and unemployment benefits and fox any other benefits
he would have earned had he been properly recalled.
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 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.
Claimant was on an authorized leave of absence in June of
1975
when a
force reduction took place at Barstow, California where claimant held
seniority as an electrician. Claimant was notified of the force reduction
by registered mail. He failed to respond to the reduction notice by filing
his address with the Carrier within seven days as xeqaired by rule
24(c).
Claimant was further notified by registered mail on June
23, 1975
that he
had been removed from the seniority roster. Additionally, Claimant did not
file his current address with the Carrier in December of
1975
as required
by the rule.
Foam 1 Award No.
7+69
Page 2 Docket No. 7415
2-AT&SF-EW-'78 ,,
In June of 197 employes who were junior in seniority to the claimant
prior to his removal from the seniority roster, were ,recalled to service.
This claim was filed on July
16, 1976
alleging a violation of the recall
provisions of rule 24(d). Rules 24(c) and 24(d) read as follows:
"(c) Employes laid off in force reduction must, within
seven
(7)
days of the date of notice of reduction, file their
addresses with the officer in charge, in triplicate, on form
to be provided fox the purpose. The officer will sign and
return one copy to the employe and deliver one to the Local
Chairman of the Craft. Employe so affected must also advise
the officer in charge of any subsequent changes in his address,
and, in addition, notify him in writing of his current address
between Decemb ex 1 and December 31 of each calendar year,
regardless of whether changed since last notice was filed.
Employes failing to comply with either ox both of these
requirements for filing addresses and subsequent notices of
change will result in forfeiture of seniority and right to
recall to service.
This Section (c) shall not apply in the case of an employe
who
is
force reduced in one classification and continues
employment in another classification under the provisions
of the Shop Crafts' or Firemen and Oilers' Agreements at the
same location."
"(d) In restoration of forces, including advertised temporary
vacancies, employes will be returned to service in the order
of their seniority, if available, except as provided in Rule 19,
within fourteen
(l4)
days providing they are qualified to handle
the work of the position to be filled. If not so qualified, the
employe will stand by and the next furloughed employe will be
called. An employe failing to notify officer in charge,
within ten (10) days after notice of recall has been mailed
to his last recorded address, of his intention to return to work
will result in forfeiture of seniority and right to recall,
unless proof of disability is furnished the officer in charge
within said ten (10) days and unless such time is extended because
of serious illness ox injury. Employes left unplaced shall be
considered off in force reduction but shall be subject to further
call when additional men are needed providing they comply with
all the requirements of this rule."
In that there is no dispute but that the claimant was properly notified
of both the force reduction and his loss of seniority the issue in this
case narrows to the question of whether the carrier failed in its obligations
to provide claimant with an address registration form as called for in
rule 23(c).
At the outset we must note that the issue of the Carrier's failure to
mail the registration forms was raised for the first time during the handling
Form 1
Page 3
Award No.
7+.69
Docket No. 7+15
2 -AT&SF
-DT-'78
of this case. No such complaint was made at the time the Carrier notified
the claimant that he was removed from the seniority roster.
The wording "on a form to be provided fox that purpose" obviously
places an obligation on the Carrier. As a matter of cause, the forms axe
kept in the office on the property and obtained by furloughed employes at
that point. The question raised is whether because claimant was on a leave
of absence the carrier was under an obligation to mail a foam to Claimant
absent a request from him to do so.
The procedure is not spelled out on this point,but it appears to the
Board that, upon receipt of proper notice of furlough, there is at least
a commensurate obligation on the part of the claimant to protect his rights
by making a request fox the foam. The claimant has not made his case that
the form was not provided by the carrier as called fox in Rule 23(c).
A W A R D
Claim denied.
Attest: Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOAR
By Order of Second Division
B:Ro ~ emaxie Brasch - Administrative Assistant
Dated. at Chicago, Illinois, this 10th day of February,
1978.
Imo