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 dispute was still pending with SBA No. 570 when on June 1, 1993, the parties at the National Level agreed that disputes of this type which had not been assigned to and argued before a Referee at SBA No. 570 could "be withdrawn by either party at any time prior to August 1, 1993." The Agreement allowed that "a dispute withdrawn pursuant to this paragraph may be refered to any boards available under Section 3 of the RLA . . . ." (undersccre ours for emphasis)
The significant events leading to this claim began on June 23, 1989 when the Carrier issued a notice pursuant to Article I, Section 4 of the September 25, 1964 Agreement ("Agreement") of its intent to close its Cleburne, Texas, facility and transfer the work being performed by its Sheet Metal Workers to its facilities at Argentine, Kansas, and Barstow, California, on or about October 1, 1989.
The parties were not able to consumate an Implementing Agreement to transfer the work and employees. The Carrier then unilaterally effected the proposed Implementing Agreement which had been rejected by the Organization, but which was identical with respect to benefits and obligations as those signed by the other crafts. This resulted in the Claimant's transfer to Barstow after his position at Cleburne was abolished on September 30, 1986. The Claimant decided for the move to accept lump sum payments of $3,000.00 and $12,000.00 in lieu of moving expenses and real estate benefits.
On January 26, 1990, the Claimant's position at Barstow was abolished and he was furloughed and he returned to Cleburne, Texas. The Organization, on February 5, 1990, filed a claim on his behalf in which it asserted that the Claimant should be provided protective benefits pursuant to Article I, Sections 6 and 9 of the Agreement. The Carrier subsequently reimbursed the Claimant for expenses incurred in the move back to Cleburne. Therefore, the only issue before the Board is whether the Claimant is entitled to protection under Article I, Section 6 of the Agreement. The specific question is: Because the Claimant transferred to Barstow (a "transaction") and was subsequently furloughed at that location, is he entitled to protection? Form 1 Award No. 12841
The record shows that the Claimant was offered and refused two positions at Barstow that did not reduce his compensation, but were outside of his craft. The Board finds that these positions were "comparable" ones to the one held by the Claimant and from which he was furloughed, as that term has been construed in this industry. The tern "comparable" has been defined, for example, in Issue No. 9 of the Amtrak C-1 Award involving the Cincinnati Union Terminal Company and the Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks Freight Handlers ExT)ress and Station Employees 19^3. There, the Arbitration Committee held in pertinent part,
This involved a comparison of a Mail & Baggage Handlers position with the Fireman's position.
The Board here follows these previous holdings that refusal of a comparable position ends entitlement to protection. Accordingly, the other elements presented by the parties in this matter will not be addressed.
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that an award favorable to the Claimant (s) not be made.