Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 9733
SECOND DIVISION
Docket No. 9468
2-B&O-CM-'83
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee John B. LaRocco when award was rendered.
( Brotherhood Railway Carmen of the United States
PARTIES
TO DISPUTE:
( and Canada
( Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company
DISPUTE:
CLAIM OF EMPLOYES:
No.l That Carrier violated the terms of the controlling Agreement, specifically,
Rule 24 (b), when on the date of May 23, 1980, Carman, D. H. Schlake's
furlough went into effect without proper notification as provided in
the above mentioned rule, thus causing Claimant to be monetarily
injured to the extent of five (5) working days.
No.2 That accordingly, Carier be ordered to compensate Claimant, Schlake
for actual time lost account this violation, five (5) days, at eight
hours' per day, at the straight-time rate of pay.
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 employer 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.
On May 16, 1980, the Carrier posted a notice at various locations throughout
its maintenance and repair facility at Stevens Yard. The notice indicated than"_
several positions would be abolished on May 23, 1980 and listed employer who
would be adversely affected as a result of the reduction in forces. Claimant's
name was listed on the bulletin and Claimant was furloughed on May 23, 1980.
Claimant seeks five days of part at the straight time rate because the
Carrier allegedly failed to give Claimant five working days notice of his impending
layoff. The Organization, relying on Rule 24 (b), argues that the Carries was
required to provide Claimant with an individual notice stating that he would be
furloughed on May 23, 1980. The Carrier contends that Rule 24 (b) was amended
on or about March 1, 1980. While individual notice was mandatory under the
prior Rule 24 (b), the amended rule called only for bulletin notice as well as
notice to the Local Chairman.
Form 1 Award No. 9733
Page 2 Docket No. 9468
2-B&O-CM-'83
Mwo
Rule 24(b)(1), as amended, states:
"Five working days' advance notice will be given to employes affected
before the abolishment of positions or reduction in force, and list
of employes affected will be furnished to the local committee using
STANDARD FORM shown below paragraph (j ) . " (F3nphasis in Text.)
The amended Rule 24(b)(1) was effective prior to May 16, 1980. The former
Rule 24 (b) required individual notice to every employe affected by a force
reduction. Since the language mandating personal notice was deleted when the
parties negotiated the amended Rule 24(b)(1), a general notice posted on a shop
bulletin boards satisfies the amended rule. In this case, the Carrier issued
bulletin notices strictly adhering to the format specified in Rule 24(jl more
than five working days before Claimant's furlough. Thus, Claimant received
proper notice.
A W A R D
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BCKRD
By Order of Second Division
ATTEST:
i~
Nancy J. Liver - Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 14th day of December, 1983