Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 10462
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 10401
2-AT&SF-MA-'85
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Hyman Cohen when award was rendered.
( International Association
of Machinists and Aerospace
( Workers
Parties to Dispute:
( The Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
1. That the Carrier improperly dismissed Machinist J. M. Calhoun (hereinafter referred to as Claimant) from service on March 15, 1982.
2. That, accordingly, the Carrier be ordered to restore Claimant to
service with seniority and service rights unimpaired with compensation for all wage loss.
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 employes 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.
The Claimant has been employed by the Carrier as a Machinist at its Diesel
Shops facility located in Cleburne, Texas. He entered the service of the Carrier
on August 27, 1978.
At the request of the Claimant, the Carrier granted him a leave of absence
for a period of thirty (30) days, or until March 20, 1982, due to illness. On
March 1, the Carrier sent the Claimant a certified letter advising him that he
was placed on layoff status effective March 5, 1982. He was also sent address
registration forms to execute and return in order to retain his seniority. The
certified letter was delivered, and receipt acknowledged by the Claimant on March
2, 1982. On March 15, 1982 the Claimant was notified by certified mail that his
name was being removed from the Seniority Roster due to his failure to file his
current address within seven (7) days as provided in Rule 24(c). The letter was
returned to the Carrier, "unclaimed" by the United States Post Office.
Form 1 Award No. 10462
Page 2 Docket No. 10401
2-AT&SF-MA-'85
Rule 24(c) in relevant part, provides as follows:
"Employes laid off in force reduction must, within seven
(7) days of the date of notice of reduction, file their
addresses with the officer in charge, in triplicate,
on form to be provided for the purpose. The officer
will sign and return one copy to the employe and deliver
one to the Local Chairman of the Craft. Employe so
affected must also advise the officer in charge of any
subsequent changes in his address and, in addition,
notify him in writing of his current address between
December 1 and December 31 of each calendar year, regardless of whether changed since last notice was filed.
Employes failing to comply with either or both of these
requirements for filing addresses and subsequent
notices of change will result in forfeiture of seniority
and right to recall to service.
***."
Rule 24(c) sets forth three (3) address registration requirements. The
employee is required to file his address with the Carrier, (1) within seven (7)
days of the date of the notice of force reduction; (2) when he changes his
address; and (3) in December of each calendar year. Under Rule 24(c) an employee's
failure to comply with one (1) or more of the address registration requirements
results in a forfeiture of seniority and the right to be recalled to service.
Rule 24(b) of the Agreement provides that an employee who is absent at the
time of layoff will be "notified by mail at the last address he has filed." It
is undisputed that the Claimant was absent and that he was "laid off in force
reduction". Moreover, he was "notified by mail at the last address he has
filed." Accordingly, he was required to file his address, which he failed to do.
The Organization contends that the Claimant was taking medication during
the period in question and should be excused from the address registration
requirement of Rule 24(c). The Board does not find this argument meritorious.
Dr. Alderman, the Claimant's physician, stated in a letter dated April 3, 1982
that the Claimant has been treated by him "for severe emotional stress" and that
he (the Claimant) had been prescribed "very strong medication" during the period
that he was required to file his address under Rule 24(c). However, the Claimant
had seven (7) days within which he was required to file his address. Even if the
medication the Claimant presumably had been taking, caused drowsiness, it is
difficult to believe that such medication, in and of itself, would cause him not
to return the registration requirements for seven (7) straight calendar days.
Furthermore, the Claimant signed the receipt for the certified letter. By doing
so, it is highly unlikely that he was in some way precluded from reading and
understanding the notice.
Form 1 Award No. 10462
Page 3 Docket No. 10401
2-AT&SF-MA-'85
Second Division Award 7770, which involved the parties to this dispute
states: "Under the clear and unambiguous language of Rule 24, we have no
alternative but to deny the claim. See Awards 7469, 4336 and 257 (Second);
20711, 17596, 15678, 12858 and 9457 (Third)." Furthermore, it should be pointed
out that this Board "cannot sit to dispense its personal brand of equity and
industrial justice." It must apply and interpret the Rules as written. See
Third Division Award 20711. Accordingly, the claim is denied.
A W A R D
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
Attest: _~rG
Nancy J er - Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 19th day of June, 1985