This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.

Parties to said dispute waaived right of appearance at hearing thereon.

The first paragraph of the Statement of claim in this dispute (covering numerous individual claims) concerns the Carrier's failure to allow certain claims as presented. This portion of the dispute is closely similar to that reviewed in Second Division Award 12938 except that it involves a different Claimant. As to this aspect of the dispute, the Board reaches the same conclusion as in Award 12938.

The second Paragraph of the Statement of Claim alleges that the Claimant was furloughed effective March 1, 1991 "in violation of his seniority rights." The Organization's complete statement of this alleged violation is found in the claim itself as follows:

"The Carrier has . . . allowed junior employees to remain on duty and under pay either in permanent or temporary positions performing regular assigned, relief and/or extra work."

The Claimant and four other Electricians were assigned to the Transportation Service Center, a "running repair" shop. All were given notice of furlough on March 1, 1991. Two of these Electricians had the seniority (and, as emphasized by the Carrier, the qualifications) to displace employees at the Wheel and Axle Shop, five miles away. To acquaint them with their duties there, the Carrier temporarily retained two Wheel and Axle Shop employees.

The Organization argues that the Claimant was senior to these two temporarily retained employees, as well as another employee

In this instance, the organization also contends that one of the Wheel and Axle Shop employees held for training his replacement also worked several other days. Whether this is factual or not, there is no showing, as the Carrier emphasizes, that the Claimant was qualified for work in the wheel and Axle Shop, and it is clearly reasonable that he would not have been so employed for the few days referenced by the Organization.

The Carrier offers a number of defenses to its position, but it is necessary to review only a few of these.

Referring for ease of discussion to the first claim on behalf of the Claimant, the Carrier contends that it is untimely and may not be considered by the Board. The Carrier notes that the claim is dated may 3, 1991, whereas the specified action by the Carrier was to furlough the Claimant on March 1, 1991. The Carrier points out that the claim was made more than 60 days after the alleged violation and thus, under Article V, is time barred.

The Board finds that there are grounds for finding the claim to be timely. While the Claimant was furloughed on March 1, no advance notice was given. In lieu thereof, the Carrier paid the Claimant for the following five work days. The claim, as a result, seeks remedy commencing March 8 -- making the May 3 claim to be within the required 60 days.

On the merits, however, the Organization fails to prove a violation in the means of furloughing the Claimant. The Organization refers to the two junior employees temporarily retained for instructional purposes at the Wheel and Axle Shop. This is not an unusual step, and there is simply no showing that the Claimant could have been utilized in the temporary training capacity for acquainting Electricians senior to the Claimant in the assignments to which their seniority took them.

As to the other employee, the Carrier provides convincing records that he was working throughout this period as a noncontract supervisor (although apparently having skills and experience as an Electrician). There was no basis demonstrated to show that the Carrier was in any way required to permit the Claimant to displace this Supervisor.

In sum, there is simply no demonstration that the Claimant was improperly furloughed in derogation of his seniority entitlement.

AWARD