Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 10856
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 10632
2-B&O-CM-'86
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Leonard K. Hall when award was rendered.
(Brotherhood Railway Carmen of the United States
( and Canada
Parties to Dispute:
(The Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
1. That the Carrier violated the controlling Agreement when on the
date of January 3, 1983, they recalled a junior man to service from furloughed
status, in lieu of calling Claimant Carman R. A. Smith with superior seniority, allowed the junior employee to work on the above date, while Carman
Smith, the senior employee remained in furloughed status, in violation of Rule
24 (g) of the controlling Agreement.
2. That accordingly, Carrier be ordered to compensate Claimant R. A.
Smith for all time lost as a result of such violation of his seniority rights,
eight (8) hours' pay at the straight time rate of pay on the date of January
3, 1983.
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.
This dispute centers on the Claimant's contention that he should have
been called from furlough ahead of a Carman junior to him in seniority who was
also on furlough.
The Organization cites a portion of Rule 24(g) in support of its
position that the Claimant is entitled to the payment sought by presentation
and appeal of the Claim. The cited Rule reads:
"In the restoration of forces, senior laid-off men
will be given preference in returning to service,
if available within 15 days. . . "
Form 1 Award
No. 10856
Page 2 Docket
No.
10632
2-B&O-CM-'86
If practices in previous instances of the nature involved here were
different from the procedures followed in the recall of the Carmen in this
dispute, such instances were not cited.
In this type of Claim, the burden is on the petitioner to prove a
violation by presentation of probative and substantial evidence. That
requirement was not met.
A W A R D
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
Attest:
C
yNancy J. er - Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 28th day of May 1986.
low