Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 9
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 8923
2-CWP&S-CM-'82
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Herbert L. Marx, Jr. when award was rendered.
( Brotherhood Railway Carmen of the United States
Parties to Dispute: ( and Canada




Dispute: Claim of Employes:





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 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.



In this dispute, the Organization raises the procedural point that the Carrier failed to state a reason in its reply to the claim, as required by Article V of the August 21, 1954 Agreement, which reads in part as follows:






F orm 1 Page 2

Award No. 9005
Docket No. 8923
2-CWP&S-CM-'82

Under the circumstances, the Board finds that this statement meets the requirement of Article V, even though it makes no specific reference to a particular rule. While it may have found the reason insufficient, the Organization was made fully aware of the basis for the Carrier's action.

The Organization states without contradiction that the Claimants (along with all other employees, according to the Carrier) were furloughed with virtually no advance notice.

Rule 19, as amended, reads as follows:

"Effective July 16, 1962, existing rules providing that advance notice of less than five (5) working days be given before the abolishment of a position or reduction in force are hereby revised so as to require not less than five (5) working days' advance notice.

The Carrier admits to not granting the required five days' notice but defends its action based upon an undisputed total shutdown of its business at the time under "emergency" conditions. There is no evidence that the Carrier withheld notice to its employees for any period after learning of the cessation of the need for its services.

The concept is reasonably founded that an "emergency" of the nature here involved may abrogate a notice requirement. "Notice" implies a period of time during which employees continue to work while facing reassignment or furlough. Conditions in this instance made such period of continued work impossible of fulfillment.

The Carrier cited no other basis for its action, but the Board finds this sufficient to justify its action. The Board will not direct the enforcement of a notice period when there appears to have been no way for it to be provided, given the sudden and total cessation of the Carrier's business.

A W A R D

Claim denied.

Attest: Acting Executive Secretary
National Railroad Ad:iustment Board_

By

jsema sch Administrative Assist
s,-lm rriee Brasch Administrative Assistant

Daterd at Chicago, Illinois, this 24th day of March, 1982

NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

By Order of Second Division