Form
1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award
No.7982
SECOND DIVISION Docket No.
7836.
2-N&W-FO-'79
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Bernard Cushman when award was rendered,
( System Federate-0n No,
16,
Railway Employes'
( Department, A. F. of L. - C. I. 0.
Parties to Dispute: ( (Firemen & Oilers)
( Norfolk and Western Railvray Company
Dispute: Claim of L~rplor5es:
1. That under the current agreement Laborer Michael Leon Pharris was
not properly recalled within the meaning and intent of the current
agreement and further eras not allowed to return to service when he
did return for duty on August 2,
1976,
This resulted zn his loss
of employment with the Norfolk and Western Railway Company.
2. The.t accordingly the Carrier be ordered to reinstate Laborer
Michael Leon Fharri.s with seniority rights unimpaired, made whole
for all lost wages, health and welfare and insurance benefits,
vacation rights, Railroad Retirement benefits including unemployment
and sickness benefits and any other benefits ho i~,~ould have earned
had he not been unjustly- held from the service of the Norfolk &
Western Railway Compaq; from August 2,
1976.
FindilE s: -
The Second Division of the Adjustment Boards 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 set 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.
The claimant, Michael Pharris, was employed by the Carrier on
October
9,
197+,
in their Gar Department at Portsmouth, Ohio. The claimant was later
furloughed due to economic reasons in
1976,
On July 12,
1976,
when the
claimant was on furlough status the Carrier found it necessary to recall a.
laborer at Portsmouth. The claimant was the senior furloughed laborer.
On July 12,
1976,
the Carrier attempted to recall the claimant by telephone
using the telephone numbers provided by the clair~.ant. The first telephone
number resulted in a response by the person answering, a Mrs. Pritchard,
informing the Carrier that she had never heard of the claimant and did nod;
Form l Award No.
7982
Page 2 Docket No.
7836
2-rTs:w-FO-
`79
understand why her telephone number had been given.- The second telephone
number listed by the claimant as the number at which he could be reached did
not contain any area code and could nit be called because it was not a local
nmnber. On the fols.ovring day, July l3, 176, the Carrier sent a registered
letter to the last address provided by the claimant. On July 17, this letter
was returned unopened and stamped as unable to be delivered or forwarded. -
The claimant sought .to return to work on August
2,
claming that he had not
learned about his recall until that time. The Carrier informed the cla,inva.nt
that under Rule 14 his seniority rights had been fcrfeited, fuse No. 14,
Reducing Forces, provides:
"In reducing or increasing forces, employees will be
relieved from or restored to service according to
ability and seniority. F:nployees will be given fortyeight
(ZE8)
hours` notice before reduction is made.
When employees laid off by reason of force reduction
desire to retain their seniority rights, they will
file their address with the officer of the department
notifying them of the reduction, and keep him advised
of any change in same. Failure to do so or to
return to service within a reasonable time after being
notified will forfeit all seniority rights.
Employees not needed because of interruptions due to
breakdown in machinery, floods, fires arid the like,
or other interruptions beyond the control of the
Company, may be dispensed with without the regular
forty-eight (1+8) hours` notice."
Understanding of Rule No,
14 -
"It is understood that the words 'reasonable time'
mean within fifteen (15) days, unless special
provision shall have been made with the
employing
officer."
The Board notes that Rule
14
imposes upon the employee the obligation
to file his address with the Carrier and provides explicitly that the Carrier
b e advised of arty change in address. Rule lt+ expressly states that failure to
do so will result in the forfeiture of all seniority rights. It appears
that the claimant was visiting with his mother in Cincinnati at times relevant
here. He failed to so inform the Carrier. The Carrier made all efforts required
under Rule
14
to reach the claimant and his failure to receive the registered
letter of July 13 was attributable to his failure to inform the Carrier of
his whereabouts. Under all the circumstances the Carrier's action was proper
and consistent with the provisions of Rule 14.
Form 1 Award No. 7982
Page 3 Docket No. 7836
2-N&W-FO-'79
The issue raised by the Carrier as to time limits, in view of the Board's
decision stated above on the merits, need not be considered. The Board's
decision on the merits is supported by Second Division Award No. 7027 where
the Board, under somewhat similar circumstances, found that notice by
certified mail is a reasonable and. diligent manner of giving notice and is
the usual method.
A yd A R D
Claim denied.
NATIONAL -t;AITIROAD ADJUST= BOARD
By Order of Second Division
Attest: Executive Secxet,ary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
~.-r~'-~
w
By
s'~..~....~^'l%~
~Ko eznarie Brasch - Actninistrative Assistant
Dated at Chicagos Illinois this 20th day of June, 1979.