This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.
By letter dated October 14, 1999, the Carrier notified the Organization that the Waterville Car Shop facility would be closed for vacation for three separate weeks (June 18-24, July 16-22, August 13-19) in calendar year 2000, that a reduced workforce consisting of one Crane Operator and six Carmen would be used during those dates. The notice also stated that no more than two Carmen could be off on vacation at the same time during other periods.
Representatives of the parties discussed the proposed shutdowns prior to filing the instant claim. The claim protests as unreasonable Carrier's requirement that most of the Carmen at Waterville take their vacations at the same time on three separate occasions in one year. The claim also request the following remedy:
During the claim's progression, various conferences were held and a settlement proposed by the Carrier. The settlement was rejected by the Organization. The Organization continually protested what it perceived as the Carrier's failure to give any reason for its action throughout the claim's progression. After resolution of this dispute was unsuccessful on the property, the Organization filed Notice of Intent with the Board on October 4, 2001, requesting the following relief:
The Organization argues that the Carrier violated Rule 17.10, 17.11 and the December 17,1941 National Vacation Agreement by unilaterally imposing the vacation shutdowns without prior notice to, and consultation with, the Organization. It also asserts that the Carrier's failure to give any reason for its shutdowns, despite the Organization's request, resulted in a lack of proof of operational need (Public Law Board No. 5665), and an untimely response to the claim.
The Carrier contends that the Board lacks jurisdiction to resolve this dispute because the claim presented to the Board is not the same claim presented on the property (Second Division Awards 13330, 11032, 6610 and Third Division Awards 33940, 29731, 28466, 20457, 20008, 13235, 10537). Further the Organization is requesting declaratory relief which is beyond the Board's jurisdictional authority (Second Division Awards 11380, 11135, 4567 and Third Division Awards 32939, 20244). The Carrier asserts that its declination responses on the property were sufficient (Second Division Awards 11257, 11172, 11039, 4556 and Third Division Awards 26541, 21132). On the merits, the Carrier argues that Board precedent supports its right to schedule shutdowns based on legitimate financial and operational requirements (Third Division Award 9853, Second Division Awards 12059 and 12877).
A careful review of the record convinces the Board that the Carrier's jurisdictional arguments have merit. On the property the Organization requested that the Carrier be limited to one vacation shutdown each year. At the Board, the Organization expanded its claim to seek relief from all shutdown periods by requesting that employees be permitted to take their vacations at their desired times and preferences. We find this material variance is procedurally defective and subjects this claim to summary dismissal without consideration of the merits (Second Division Awards 11032, 6610; Third Division Awards 33940, 28466). The Board also notes that the requested remedy is beyond this Board's jurisdictional authority in that the sought remedy is a request for declaratory judgment (Third Division Award 32939).
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that an award favorable to the Claimant(s) not be made.