Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 10656
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 10260
2-SP-CM-'85
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Eckehard Muessig when award was rendered.
( Brotherhood Railway Carmen of the United States
( and Canada
Parties to Dispute:
( Southern Pacific Transportation Company
(Eastern Lines)

Dispute: Claim of Employes:












Form 1 Award No. 10656
Page 2 Docket No. 10260
2-SP-CM-'85

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.



This claim arose after it was found necessary to correct the Carmen's Seniority Roster, Lafayette Division, New Orleans Terminal. During a conference held on the property on July 14, 1982 between the parties, a review of time keeping records and time cards was made and it was determined that the Claimant's seniority date should be corrected to read 8/21/78 rather than 9/11/78. A Letter of Agreement dated July 14, 1982 served to confirm the corrections made and on July 22, 1982, a corrected seniority list was published by the Carrier. The effect of this change was to move the Claimant from a standing of 48 to 46 on the Lafayette Division Seniority Roster.

On August 5, 1982, a claim was presented on behalf of the Claimant on the contention that he had been improperly furloughed on May 7, 1982, since he stands No. 46 on the Carmen Seniority Roster (as corrected on July 22, 1982) while another Carman who now stands Number 47 was held in service. Accordingly, the Organization asserts that the Claimant had been improperly furloughed in violation of Rule 24 of the parties' Agreement.

To begin, there is no evidence that the Carrier erred by intent. Under all the circumstances here, a violation of Rule 24 did not occur, since the Carrier's actions with respect to the Claimant were in accordance with his official seniority date at the time of his furlough. We do not find contractual support to re-establish retroactively Seniority Rosters. Accordingly, while seniority properly established does provide for an increasing equity in a right to preference, here a seniority date established and agreed to by the parties, prior to the events of the claim, does not establish what is claimed for the period before July 14, 1982. However, the Board concludes that the Claimant is entitled to eight hours of pay per day at the straight time rate for the dates subsequent to July 14, 1982. Those dates are July 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 24, 25, 26, 27 and 28, 1982.




Form 1 Award No. 10656
Page 3 Docket No. 10260
2-SP-CM-'85
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
Attest:
icy J. er - Executive Secretary
10-

Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 20th day of November 1985.