FO= 1 NATIOITAL RkTLROAD ADJUSfiME1'TT BOARD Award :To. 8193
SECOND DIVIS10iT Docket iTo. 8l G6
2-OR-EW-179

The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee Richard R. Kasheruhen award was rendered.

( System Federation iTo. 1, Railvay 1:nployes t
( Department, A. F. of L. - C. I. 0.
Parties to Dispute: ( (Electrical workers)
(
(Consolidated Rail Corporation

Dispate: Claim of Lmnloyes:

1. That under the Current Agreenent, Radio Maintainer R. L. Little

vras deprived of his ri-l?:',s when the Ca:.,rier failed to give him

five (5) days notice of his job abol-isII=ent.

2. That, accordingly, the Carrier be ordered to pay Radio i:_'aintainer

R. L. hittle for five (,7>) wor:>-.I.ng days at his utraight tune rate

for the days Claimant was deprived of his contractual rights to

work.

Findings:

The Second D'.vision of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that:

The carrier or carriers and the ertploye or enployes involved in this dispute are res pective:ly carrier and employe vp- thi n the meaning of the Raihlay Labor Act as approved June 21, 1034.

This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.

Parties to said dispute -vraived right of appearance at hearing thereon.

Clat-nant is an electrician in the employ of the Carrier assigned at

the Avon Radi o Shop an I ndianapo:I i.s, _Cndiwna. At the time the claa~r_ arose°,
the Claimant was assigned as a vacation relief radio maintainer at Avon.

On ~u1y 28, 19T( the Carrier posted Lu:lletin No. mE-1+9 which provided in relevant part:

"On the date assigmnent o' ' this bulletin, the Vacation Relief position at B i L)~'cur Radio Shop, Avon, Ind. is abolished."

This bulletin ,,To. ST,TE-49 iras addresoed to all taaintainers and solicited. applications for a l:,.cen-ed radio ~iainta:iner (rel:'.ef) 17,os~.tion head~7uarte:::~. at Indianapolis.

r
Fore 1 Award No. 8198
Page 2 Docket No. 8126
2-C R-EJ-' 79

No bids were received fox the position noticed in Bulletin No. SWE-49.

On August 10, 1977 the Claimant received an abolisYment notice, so titled, which advised that his position was being abolished at the close of business that date. I-?e was further advised that the displacement provisions of the organization's Agreement would apply.

The Organization contends the Carrier violated the rules of the Shopcrafts Agreement, particularly Rule 24(b) which provides:

"Five working days' notice will be given employees affected before reduction is made and lists will be furnished the local comn-ittee and the General Chairman of the Crafts affected."

It is the Organization's position that the Carrier did not give the required five days' notice prior to abolishing Claimant's position and therefore Claimant is entitled to five (5) working days' pay since he was left in limbo without a bonwfide position to fill.

The Carrier raises a procedural objection and states that the organization, throughout the handling of the claim on the property as well as in the docketing of the clai;u ,e'Lth this Board, cited no specific date of occurrence for the claim. Thus, the Carrier argues that the Organization's claim does riot meet tile requirements of Rule 4-0-1(a) of the Agreement waich provides in pertinent part:

"A claim or grievance must be presented in writing by an employe,, or on his behalf by his Union representative to the Emnloye's General -Yoreman ox other designated officer within sixty days from the date of the occurrence on which the claim is based..."

On the merits, the Carrier contends the Claimant received the five working days' notice of the abolisnnent of his position in Bulletin NO. SWE-49, dated Duly 28, 1977. It is the Carrier's position that the language quoted above from 3ulletin No. SWE-49 put the Claimant on notice that his position would be abolished.

The procedural objection raised by the Carrier lacks merit. In Claimant's first co:=u.nication to the Carrier dated Septerwer 1, 1977 the Claimant states that he sought five days' pay a, the straight time rate for a violation of Rte=e '2 4 "Reductic% of Forces" which occurred on August- 10~ 19T7. In the first T-r i4',;i :g from the Org::.nization to the Carrier regarding this disxute., a letter dated September 13, 1977, the organization cited the assigrnnent of the job advertised in Bulletin No. SUE-49 and the date of August 10, 1977, the date uaron which the Carrier -issued -its abolisl~m,~nt
_, notice to the Clainant. Altnouh the cle.L,. does not s~eci~; z~rhich five working days the Claimant is seeking for the alleged violation of Agreement,
Form 1 Award No. 8198
Page 3 Docket No. 8126
2-CR-EW-' 79

it is found that the ClP;.mant.and the Organization have complied T.rith the spirit, intent and the letter of the rule by putting Carrier sufficiently on notice regarding the nature of the violation grieved and the date and documentation associated zrith the alleged violation.

Turning to the .z~ _' ..`~h. - .:-~ :ryt .~ ° ~_ .. _:.: , we find that the Claimant was deprived of the five (5) days' notice required when a position is being abolished. The organization makes a convincing point when it states that the abolish.~nent 1 angua a in the Jams 28, 1977 bulletin -was contingent. That is, the bulletin states that on the date of assignment the vacation relief position at Big !,"our 1 adio Shop, Avon, Indiana zrrill be aboli.^^>hed. In view of tile fact, that no assiorm.ent issued from Bulletin SWE-49 the Carrier cannot effectively argue that its notice of that date acted as an abolishment of the ClaLLant's position.

Thus, it is found that the notice of August 10, 1977 aboll_shintg Claimant' position effective that date failed to give Clfi`-ant ad,~qu a--a time to exercise his displaces°ent rights (;,rhich is one of the purposes of an abolisranent notice provi sfi_on) and thus the claim should be sustained as requested by the Organization.

A W A R D

Claim sustained.

NATIONAL FLAITIMOAD ADJITSTP,~21N' BOARD

By Order of Second Division

Attest: Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board

._5osemarie Br arch - Adlinis trati vs Assistant

Dated at\Chicago, Illinois, this 28th day of November, 1979.

4