NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
THE NEW YORK CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY
(Line West of Buffalo)
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood, that:
EMPLOYES' STAT EMENT OF FACTS: During the week of March 9, 1952, the majority of the employes subject to the provisions of the Maintenance of Way Agreement, were laid off as the result of a strike of other classes of employes.
The employes thus affected by the reduction in force or the abolishment of their positions were not given the four calendar day notice provided for in Rule 26(a) of the effective agreement.
Instructions issued relative to this reduction in force or abolishment of positions, were, in tha majority of instances, transmitted to the employes in verbal form. A majority of the forces were out of service from the time notified on either March 9th or March 10th, 1952, until the beginning of their work period on March 14, 1952.
It is the contention of the Brotherhood that the Carrier's procedure whereby they reduced said forces, was in violation of the agreement and specifically in violation of the following provisions of that agreement;
It is the contention of the Carrier that the rule referred to by the Brotherhood in support of their position, is not applicable in this instant case be-
The present rule, containing the provision for notice, was first written into the agreement effective June 1, 1946. It is important to observe that the notice portion of the rule was at that time simply appended to the old rule by the addition of a new sentence in the same paragraph. This serves to make it clear that the amendment was intended to deal with the same subject matter as did the original rule; that the entire rule was to be considered together, and that the notice requirement extended only to the normal reductions in force necessary to reduce expenses referred to in the original rule.
It is significant that at no time did any draft of this rule make any mention of abolishing the entire force. Neither did it at any time, directly or indirectly, refer to emergency situations such as those produced by a cessation of railroad operations, and inability of the Carrier to safely continue the work of these employes. The parties cannot reasonably be charged with having written their agreement to govern such a state of affairs and it should not now be so extended by a decision of this Board.
OPINION OF BOARD: At 8:00 A. M. on Sunday, March 9, 1952, with no advance notice to the Carrier a general strike against the Carrier was called. Picket lines were established-operations were not resumed until March L?, 1952 when most of the striking employes returned to their jobs. As soon as its railroad operations were terminated, the Carrier proceeded to terminate the services of all employes whose work was thereby eliminated.
The sole issue in this case is that arising out of the failure of the Carrier to comply with the notice requirements of Rule 26 (a) of the Agreement. This rule reads as follows:
It is the position of the Carrier that the provisions of the rule are concerned exclusively with the routine and orderly changes in force which occur in the normal course of railroad operations and that it does not apply to a situation where the entire force is abolished as the result of a strike.
It is the position of the employes that the provisions of Rule 26 (a) are clear and unambiguous and that positions can be abolished only after giving the four calendar days' notice provided therein.
It is the position of the Carrier that Rule 26 (a) has no application to the facts involved in this case as all jobs were abolished and there were no positions to which Claimants could have exercised their seniority rights.
Previous decisions have held that strike situations are emergencies beyond the control of management. See Awards 3841, 4389, 4455 and 5779. It has also been held that in such situations the carrier can abolish jobs. See Award 6000. This ruling is confined to the facts in this particular dispute.
FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, after giving the parties to this dispute due notice of hearing thereon, and upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:
That the Carrier and the Employes involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and Employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934; 6479-9 872