C:\AWARDS\OUT\2-07907.htm

Form 1 NATIOML RAILROAD ADJUSTMIr]T BOARD Award No. 7907 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. h989-I
2-PCT-I-'79

The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee Herbert L. Marx, Jr. when award was rendered.

( John W. Kowalczyk

(

Parties to Dispute:

(

( Penn Central Transportation Company

Dispute: Claim of Employer:

1. Vioaation of Rule

and

for which I eras not given a Hearing, and

am noun Unemployed for over a Year,

2.

Violation of Rule 29 and

for which I have over

134,

Time Claims

totaling around

90,000,

Discrimination, I-Ia.rrasment, and Job Suspension for refusing to

" do another Crafts Work,, in Violation of the Blacksmiths Work Rule

84.

1+. Violation of Rule

on Bulletin Notices.

Violation of Rule

Pay and Vacations.

Violation of Mr. Iv:oores, 20 wl-certt System Wide Reduction of

Forces of v;hich

T~,To

Altoona Blacksmiths were Let Go.

7.

Violation of the Merger Agreement which States that No Protected

Employe can ask for or be given his Severance Fay Unless His JOB

is and Has been Abolished. Yet

nay

Helper John Giasullo was Forced

to take his Severance Fay by Mr. Higgins wren I the Local Char -nian

was not there, and was told to either Sign or Do Not coma in the

follavring l~londay as you will not get Payed. The section that

States if an Dnployees Job eras Posted as Abolished at one Point

and he vr? s Transferred to another Point, and his Job eras again

Posted as Abolished rIe would then be sent back to his Last Place

of Empla .cent, of which T did report to hIr. Lydon and had him call

Mx. Hi.Lr;gins, and was told to go Home.

Violation of the Washington Agreement which-Call for

Percent

of" your Pay with full Retire:aent and Hospitalization Insurance

Credits for

Years of which neither i~y Helper or I were asked as

we were the last of the Tl-ew Haven Ll_ackss~.iths, and. helpers and

therefore entitled to the T,~,Tasli:ington. AgreP.r.ent.

Form 1 Award rdo. 7907 Page 2 Docket No. 6989-I 2-PCT-I-'79 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 employer 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 were given due notice of hearing thereon.

This Award is a result of reconsideration by the Board of its Award No. 7732, arising from a dispute between the C7_aix;:ant, as an individual, and the Carrier. Award No. 7732 vas itself a second look at the Claimant's case, originally heard and dismissed by the Board in Award rdo. 7156, dated October 29, 1976. Award No. 7157 'w-as reconsidered in Award Tao. 7732 and now again receives reconsideration 7arsuant to remand of the United States District Court (KOwALC YK vs Tr,t`1LSIT, District Court of Massachusetts, CA 77-31x2& T, August 16, 1, Tatzto, J.) wherein the Board -was directed, in accordance with the procedures specified in 45 USC 153 (q) to hear the matter and further to specifically determnine whether Claimant railed to process his claim in a procedurally correct manner and whether any or all of the claims are barred by the statutory limitations set out in Rule 34-A of the schedule agreement. At the hearing in the current reconsideration on March 28, 1979, the Board again offered to the Claimant full opportunity to show that arms of his claims covered in the present dispute were properly processed on the property under Ruse 34-A of the agreement between the parties or, if covered by the Merger Protection Agreement, as required under Section 29 (a) of the Implementing Agreement. Despite encouragement by various members of the Board and the Referee sitting with the Board, the Claimant failed to add any evidence to the existing record to :indicate that his claims were so processed. The Claimant, however., did offer to provide the Board with his entire record of papers (of a nature unspecified during the hearing). Going beyond its normal rules of procedure, the Board accepted this file for review. The Claimant's file has been reviewed in detail. It deals with miscellaneous matters connected with the Claizrant's e.,·nploly:nent with the Carrier and considerable correspondence with his Organization and the Carrier dealing with a variety of nat tens . The file fails to provide arty evidence which, on its face, indicates that the claims in question were Form 1 Award No. 7907 page 3 Docket No. 6989-z
2-PCT-I-'79 processed to "the highest officer of the Carrier designated for that purpose" (Rule 34-A). Thus, the evidence offered by and received from the Claimant at the Board hearing fail to demonstrate any more than what was shown by the previous record -- namely, that none of the claims is properly before the Board for resolution and, further, were either never initiated under or abandoned during the claim handling procedure on the property. The file does show, by clear inference, that the Claimant in the past has had some familiarity with the claim processing procedure. Included is at least one claim (not among those presently set forth) which was a disciplinary matter sustained in part through the efforts of representatives of the Organization. On the basis of the extensive oral hearing granted to the Claimant., an examination of the records which he submitted, and the previously existing record originally considered in Award No. 7196, the Board herewith readopts its findings in Award No. 7732.

A WAR D

The Board further reaffirms its dismissal of claims made by the employe through his letter of October 1.8, 1y74, and his submission to the Board dated November 3, 1975. NATIONAL RftThROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD By Order of Second Division Attest: Executive Secretary National Railroad Adjustment Board o emarie Branch - Administrative Assistant Dated a Chicago, Illinois, this 9th day of May, 1979.