The carrier or carriers and the employee or employees involved in this -ispute are respectively carrier and employee 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.
Claim of the Organization, dated November 20, 1990, is that the Carrier violated the Agreement in furloughing Claimants without providing protective benefits. The organization alleges that the Carrier reorganized its operations with specific impact on Wellington, Kansas, wherein the Carrier transferred work to other locations and engaged in actions constituting abandonment, discontinuance for six months or more and or consolidation of facilities and services without providing effected employees their Agreement protective benefits. The organization points to the September 25, 1964 Agreement which states:
As the Claimants were affected by the Carrier's actions at Wellington, the Organization further alleges violation of Article I, Section 4 in that Claimants were not given the sixty (60) days notice advising of their furloughs.
The Carrier argues on the property that the positions were abolished due to a lack of work. Therefore, no notice was required under the September 25, 1964 Agreement. The Carrier further maintains that it did not violate the Agreement in that there was no operational change, transfer of work, abandonment or consolidation which would trigger protective benefits. In fact, the Carrier argues that Claimants Crawford, Johnson and Atchley were improper Claimants due to lack of seniority or early 1980's furloughs, with the other four Claimants having their positions abolished due solely to insufficient work. Forth 1 Award No. 12996
In a review of this record the Board has studied the evidence submitted by the Organization to determine if it is sufficient to establish that the Claimants' furloughs were traceable to an Article I, Section 2 (a) or (b) condition. The Organization provided half a dozen newspaper and radio transcripts from September to November 1990, which do state that the Carrier was undergoing a reorganization, would abandon track and decrease operations. In one announcement, the Carrier's Manager of Labor Relations discussed "... the termination and transfer of the employees" and noted that "... the work will be moved to other locations."
Moreover, the Organization supports its Claim that the furlough at the Wellington yard was due to Carrier violation of the Agreement with a full range of exhibits documenting with pictures the alleged abandonment. Those pictures submitted in March 1991 provide evidentiary proof that buildings and equipment that made the yard an active operational facility had been removed. The Organization alleges this is further proof of abandonment.
This Board has carefully studied all of the evidence presented by the Organization. It is essential before turning to the Carrier's allegations of insufficient work to determine that a case has been made by the organization that the furloughs where caused by work transfer or abandonment within the language of Section 2 (b) , Article I, supra. In our study of the record, we find no evidence that the alleged Carrier plans and actions constituted transfer or abandonment directly resulting in the Claimants'
furloughs. Of the seven Claimants, two were furloughed over seven years earlier, one was a machinist, two were furloughed prior to this Claim and the two furloughed October 16, 1990 worked less than four hours a day. The removal of structures does not prove abandonment. The Organization did not provide evidence that work ceased to be performed at Wellington. A search of the record for operational changes which would have led to a transfer of the Claimants' work to another location has been made. No other location has been identified.
The Board's review, when focusing upon the necessity of the Carrier to dispute the allegations finds the following. The Carrier maintains that it changed from "captive power" to "road power" at Wellington. This has been studied and does not constitute a violation of the September 25, 1964 Agreement with regard to the instant Claim. More importantly, the Carrier argued that prior to the abolishment of laborer positions on October =6, 1990: Form 1 Award No. 12996
The Carrier also argues that after the force reduction, "... work continued to be performed at Wellington," including 11... some of the work theretofore performed by claimants." The Carrier refutes the evidence presented by the Organization.
The Organization's letter of January 29, 1994, does not overcome the deficiencies in proof. A review of Special Board of Adjustment No. 570, Award 1067 and others finds that unlike this case, those Awards include the "location" where the work was transferred. This claim is denied as the evidence that Wellington was abandoned or that a transfer of work occurred is insufficient. The Organization did not rebut the Carrier's argument that there was a lack of work as the cause of furloughs. A lack of work does not trigger protective benefits.
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that an award favorable to the Claimant(s) not be made.