JOINT COUNCIL DINING CAR EMPLOYEES UNION,
LOCAL 370
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of Joint Council Dining Car Employees Union Local 370 on the property of New York Central Railroad (Lines East) for and on behalf of Brown Haskins for pay for each days he was furloughed from October 11, 1957, while Carrier assigned work to junior employes in violation of agreement.
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: On November 12, 1957 Organization filed claim in the instant docket (Employes Exhibit A). That claim set up the fact that on October 11, 1957 claimant filed request for displacement of junior utility man. This was acknowledged on that date by Carrier's Mr. Mooney. The displacement slip is attached hereto as Employes Exhibit B.
On November 15, 1957, Carrier's Superintendent Dining Services denied the claim (Employes Exhibit C). On November 26, 1957 Organization appealed the claim to Carrier's Manager Dining Service, the highest designated officer on the property of the Carrier to consider such appeals (Employes Exhibit D). Carrier's Manager Dining Service denied the claim on February 20, 1958 (Employes Exhibit E).
The facts in the instant docket are that claimant has seniority as utility man dating from March 14, 1946. Employe Merriman had seniority in the class of utility man dating from August 12, 1948. Claimant's regular assignment as utility man was abolished August 5, 1957 when claimant attempted to exercise his displacement rights. Carrier refused to permit claimant, the senior employe, to displace the junior employe.
POSITION OF EMPLOYES: The current agreement between the parties became effective May 16, 1948. A copy of the agreement is on file with the Board and is incorporated herein by reference as though fully set out. For convenience the rules involved in the instant claim for the interpretation and application by this Board are Rules 5 and 12, and are set out in full as follows:
The claim in this Docket tvas presented by the Joint Council Dining Car Employes, Local 385 against the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad Company, on behalf of buffet attendant I. R. Richardson, The position taken by the Joint Council Dining Car Employes in that case, incidentally, is the reverse of their contention in the instant claim.
The facts in Docket DC 7575 are not complex. Richardson had seniority as attendant from 2/1/48, and as assistant attendant from 2/10/48. One Weber had seniority as attendant dating from 2/21/48 and as assistant attendant from 7/30/47. While Richardson was furloughed account reduction in force, Weber was used to perform service in the classification of attendant. In sustaining the claim in that case the Board ruled:
For the reasons hereinbefore cited, Carrier respectfully submits that the claim of the Employes in this docket is without merit and should be denied.
All the facts and arguments herein presented were made known to the Employes during handling on the property.
OPINION OF BOARD: Rule 1, Scope of the Agreement between the parties covers two classes of employes, as follows:
The Agreement also provides separate seniority for each such class. Claimant held seniority as Utility Man but no seniority as Head Utility Man. Consequently, Carrier's denial of Claimant's request to displace Head Utility Man Merriman, who held seniority in both classes, was not in violation of the Agreement when Claimant was furloughed in force reductions in October 1957.
FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:
,That the Carrier and Employe involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and Employe within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 1934; 11521-11 11