Form 1
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No.
7700
SECOND DIVISION Docket No.
7528
2-MP-EW-'78
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Abraham Weiss when award was rendered.
Parties to Dispute:
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
System Federation No. 2, Railway Employes'
Department, A. F. of L. - C. I. 0.
(Electrical Workers)
Missouri Pacific Railroad Company
1. That the Missouri Pacific Railroad Company violated Section 1(a)
of the Memorandum Agreement signed May 26,
1973
to be effective
April 1,
1973,
at Houston, Texas when they deprived Electrician
Apprentice J. R. Benavides of his rights as provided for in the
Memorandum Agreement.
Findings:
That, accordingly, the Missouri Pacific Railroad Company be
ordered to compensate Electrician Apprentice J. R. Benavides
ninety-four cents (94¢) per hour, eight
(8)
hours per day for
February
16, 1976
and
continuing each
and every day until the
violation has been corrected.
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
dispute are respectively carrier and employe within the meaning of the
Railway Labor Act as approved June 21,
1934.
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 is a claim requesting payment for the difference in earnings
between the journeyman's rate and the electrician apprentice rate of pay
commencing February
16 1976.
The claim is based on the allegation that
Carrier improperly set Claimant, an upgraded apprentice, back to his
position as an apprentice. The Organization argues that inasmuch as Carrier
never posted a notice of force reduction concerning the abolishment of one (1)
journeyman's position pursuant to Rule 21(b) and Article III of the
June 5, 1962 National Agreement, Claimant's journeyman's position still
existed and Claimant was wrongfully deprived of working it.
Form 1
Page 2
Award No.
7700
Docket No. 7528
2-MP-EW-'78
We have no quarrel with Carrier's arguments that under May 26,
1973
Upgrading Agreement, it is Carrier's prerogative to determine if apprentices
or others should be upgraded, and we have no quarrel with this argument
insofar as it applies to the reverse situation; to wit, a reduction in the
number of journeymen positions which necessitates setting back apprentices
who have been so upgraded. The problem here, however, is that to set
Claimant back from a journeyman to an apprentice required a force reduction
of one (1) journeyman. Under the controlling provisions of the agreement
cited supra, Carrier is obligated to give five (5) days' notice of abolishmeat
of a position or a force reduction, which it failed to do in this case. We
do find however, that two weeks later, on March 1, Carrier did post a
force reduction notice to be effective March 5, abolishing the journeyman's
position which Claimant had occupied. Accordingly, we will sustain this
claim for the difference in earnings (94 cents per hour) between February 16
and March 5, when the force reduction notice given pursuant to the agreement
became effective.
A W A R D
Claim sustained to the extent indicated in the findings.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
Attest: Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
BY.:.~ ~*~=_"'°t,,°`°''
~` os~emarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 25th day of October, 1978.
