CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE, ST. PAUL AND PACIFIC
RAILROAD COMPANY
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood (GL-5702) that:
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: Employe K. A. Eirhart requested and was granted a six-month leave of absence, thereby creating a temporary vacancy on his regular assignment on Position No. 2510 in Seniority District No. 32 which was subject to bulletin under the provisions of Rule 9.
On February 5, 1964 Bulletin No. 18 was issued by Superintendent A. C. Novak advertising the vacancy on Position No. 2510. Copy of Bulletin 18 is submitted as Employes' Exhibit A.
Employe L. E. Kehoe, who has a seniority date in Seniority District No. 32 of September 28, 1961, was awarded the temporary vacancy on Position No. 2510 by Superintendent Novak's Bulletin No. 22 dated February 13, 1964, copy of which is submitted as Employes' Exhibit B.
On February 28, 1964, Bulletin No. 31 was issued by Superintendent Novak advertising Relief Position No. 17. Copy of Bulletin No. 31 is submitted as Employes' Exhibit C.
On March 9, 1964, Bulletin No. 34 was issued by Superintendent Novak awarding Relief Position No. 17 to Employe J. R. Ferris. Copy of Bulletin No. 34 is submitted as Employes' Exhibit D.
On March 24 1964 Mr. Novak replied to Claimant Kehoe's aforequoted letter of March 22 as follows:
Mr. Novak's aforequoted denial of Claimant Kehoe's request resulted in the instant claim.
There is attached as Carrier's Exhibit E copy of letter written by Mr. S. W. Amour, Assistant to Vice President, to Mr. H. V. Gilligan, General Chairman, under date of June 29, 1964 and as Carrier's Exhibit F copy of letter written by Mr. Amour to Mr. Gilligan under date of August 7, 1964.
OPINION OF BOARD: A regularly assigned employe of Carrier's requested a six month's leave of absence, creating a temporary vacancy. On February 5, 1964, Bulletin 18 was issued by the Superintendent, advertising this vacancy, Position No. 2510. Claimant Kehoe bid on and was awarded the temporary vacancy on February 13, 1964. On February 28, 1964, Bulletin No. 31 was issued by the Superintendent advertising permanent Relief Position No. 17. On March 9, 1964, a bulletin was issued awarding Relief Position No. 17 to an employe junior in seniority to the Claimant. On March 24, 1964, Claimant Kehoe wrote the Superintendent notifying him that he was giving up Temporary Vacancy No. 2510 to displace the junior employe on Permanent Relief Assignment No. 17, effective March 24, 1964, per Rule 9(h) of the effective Agreement. It is Claimant's contention that Carrier denied to him the right to exercise his seniority rights under the agreement to Relief Position No. 17.
It is the position of the Carrier that when Claimant gave up the position he held by bulletin he would return to a furlough status and, consequently, Rule 9(h) of the agreement would not apply.
It is the contention of Claimant that under the provisions of Rule 9(h) an employe assigned to a temporary vacancy who desires to give up such vacancy may exercise seniority rights on any position bulletined during the period he occupies the temporary vacancy. To the contrary, it is Carrier's position that once an employe reverts to a furloughed status he could not again exercise displacement rights until he was again affected on a permanent position.
Award 7335 (Coffey) arose out of controversy between these same identical parties. A claim was filed by regular assigned employes because Carrier permitted furloughed employes to displace them. It was urged by Carrier that upon the abolishment of their positions there was no reason why these furloughed employes should not have been accorded the right to exercise their seniority to displace junior employes in the same seniority district. Employes in Award 7335 urged that the rights asserted by furloughed employes only attach in the event it was found by the Board that they were recalled for and working a permanent assignment, contrary to their position here.
Though the facts in Award 7335 and this case are not essentially the same, it appears that the principle involved is. Consequently, the Board has established a precedent. If we are to have any consistency in the awards on this property, we then must reach a conclusion based on the principle heretofore established by this Board which in the instant case, under the facts of this case, indicates a sustaining award.
Claimant shall be compensated on a pro rata pay basis for earnings lost because of his being prevented from exercising his seniority rights on the days indicated in the claim from March 24 to April 4, 1964. For any subsequent dates, during the continuance of the violation, he is prevented from exercising his seniority rights he shall, if available, be compensated on the same basis; however, any moneys Claimant otherwise earns through employment shall be offset against such allowance.