Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
SECOND DIVISION
Award No. 13512
Docket No. 13264
00-2-97-2-34
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee
Elizabeth C. Wesman when award was rendered.
(International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
( (System Council No. 16)
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(Duluth, Missabe and Iron Range Railway Company
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
"Claim
of
the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:
1. That in violation
of
the controlling Agreement, Rule 23(a) in
particular, Electricians G. Arras, R. Swenson and J. Anderson did
not receive the proper lay-off notice when the Duluth Missabe and
Iron Range Railway Company failed to post a job abolishment
notice, which was subsequently a lay-off notice to the Claimants, for
the required five (5) days.
2. That accordingly, the Duluth Missabe and Iron Range Railway
Company should be directed to compensate Electricians G. Arras,
R. Swenson and J. Anderson eight (8) hours pay at the pro-rata
rate."
FINDINGS:
The Second Division
of
the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the
evidence, finds that:
The carrier or carriers and the employee or employees involved in this dispute
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.
Form 1 Award No. 13512
Page 2 Docket No. 13264
00-2-97-2-34
Parties to said dispute were given due notice
of
hearing thereon.
By Bulletin No. E-040-95 dated August 29, 1995, the Carrier notified the
Organization that it intended to abolish ten Electrician positions at Two Harbors,
Minnesota, effective end-of-shift Tuesday, September 5,1995. As a result of Bulletin No.
E-040-95, all Claimants, who were employed at the Carrier's Duluth, Minnesota, Ore
Dock Facility, were displaced by senior employees from Two Harbors and subsequently
laid-off. Bulletin No. E-040-95 was not posted at the Duluth Ore Dock Facility for five
days.
In a letter dated October 23, 1995, the Organization filed a claim stating that the
improper posting
of
Bulletin No. E-040-95 deprived Electricians G. Arras, R. Swenson
and J. Anderson of their five working days notice
of
lay-off as stated in the Agreement.
Since they received four working days notice, the Organization submitted the claim on
behalf
of
the three Electricians for eight hours' pay each at the straight time rate.
At issue in this case is the application of Rule 23 - Reduction and Restoration
of
Forces out of the Agreement
of
October 1, 1979, to which each Parties is signatory. Rule
23(a) reads in pertinent part as follows:
"Except as otherwise provided in this rule, when it becomes necessary for
the Carrier to reduce its forces in any department, seniority per Rule 24
will govern. Not less than five work days' notice will be given to the
employees to be laid off before the forces are reduced, and a copy
of
the
notice will be furnished the local committee. If the notice is posted by
twelve noon, that day shall be one of the five days' notice . . . ."
It is the position of the Organization that Carrier violated the Agreement when
it failed to post the job abolishment notice five days as required by Rule 23 (a) at the
Carrier's Duluth, Minnesota, Ore Dock Facility where the Claimants were employed.
The Carrier maintains it complied in full with Rule 23 (a) and disputes the
Organization's position.
The Board takes note of Second Division Award 2274. In that case, this Board
held:
Form 1 Award No. 13512
Page 3 Docket No. 13264
00-2-97-2-34
"We think the language used in Rule 22(b) should be applied to the subject
of
the bulletin to which it relates. In that sense the "men affected" are
those whose position are being abolished. If we were to extend its meaning
beyond that subject, and relate it to all employes who might become
affected because of the fact that the men whose positions were being
abolished might have and would exercise their seniority, we would place
on the carrier an almost impossible, and certainly an impractical
requirement, for carrier would then have to anticipate what each employe
was going to do. We do not think such was either the intent, meaning or
purpose
of
the language used."
In this case, the actual employees to be laid off were notified per Rule 23 (a). That
Rule makes it clear that a five-working-day notice is applicable to employees whose
positions are abolished. The Board agrees with the above noted Award that it is not
possible to predict how many persons will be affected by a force reduction when
employees exercise displacement rights. For example, some employees entitled to do so,
may, in fact elect not to, or may bid on other, non-related positions. In light
of
the
foregoing, the Board finds no basis on which to sustain the claim.
AWARD
Claim denied.
ORDER
This Board, after consideration
of
the dispute identified above, hereby orders that
an award favorable to the Claimants) not be made.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order
of
Second Division
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 15th day of May, 2000.