Mr. S. A. Cooper, Chief Engineer Gulf, Mobile & Ohio Railroad Company Mobile, Alabama

CARRIER'S STATEMENT OF FACTS: On September 8, 1959, Claimants Napoleon and Dudley Hartfield, together with six other section laborers, were employed on Section 8 to augment the Carrier's regular Maintenance of Way forces for the purpose of working with the tie replacement equipment that was being used temporarily on that Section. These employes knew and were told that their tenure of employment on Section 8 would only be so long as the tie replacement equipment was being used on Section 8.

On March 24, 1960, the Claimants, as well as the other six section laborers,, were informed by the Section Foreman that they would be furloughed at the close of work on April 6, 1960, at which time the tie replacement equipment would reach Mile Post G-90 at the end of Section 8.

A claim is presented alleging that the employes were not given proper advance notice prior to being furloughed on April 6, 1960.

Article IV of the October 7, 1959 Agreement provides:

"Not less than ninety-six (96) hours' notice will be given to regularly assigned employes, not including casual employes or employes who are substituting for regularly assigned employes, who are subject to the rules of the existing collective agreement whose positions are to be abolished before such reductions in force are made, except as provided in Article VI of the Agreement of August 21_ 1954."

No claim is presented for the other six employes who were notified on March 24, 1960, that they would also be furloughed on April 6, 1960.

(Exhibits not reproduced.)

OPINION OF BOARD: Claimants were regularly assigned section laborers, whose positions were abolished effective with the close of work on Wednesday, April 6, 1960. Carrier did not notify Claimants of such reduction in force until about 7:00 A. M. on Wednesday, April 6, 1960. Neither Claimant was able to exercise displacement rights without the loss of two (2) days' work as a direct result of the inadequate notice given them by Carrier.

Employes contend that Carrier failed to give Claimants the requirecP notice under Article IV of the controlling Agreement between the parties, which reads as follows:

"FORCE REDUCTIONS

Not less than ninety-six (96) hours' notice will be given to regularly assigned employes, not including casual employes or employes who are substituting for regularly assigned employes, who are subject to the rules of the existing collective agreement whose positions are to be abolished before such reductions in force are made, except as provided in Article VI of the Agreement of August 21, 1954."

Carrier contends that Claimants, as well as other members of the section gang, were notified approximately ten days prior to April 6, 1960 that they would be furloughed "as soon as the gang reach Mile Post G-90" and that

such notice met the requirements of Article IV of the Agreement between the parties.

We do not agree with Carrier's contention that Claimants received ten days' notice prior to the reduction in force on April 6, 1960. Article IV of the Agreement specifically requires that Carrier must give regularly assigned employes at least ninety-six (96) hours' notice before abolishing their positions. The alleged notice given by Carrier prior to April 6, 1960 was uncertain as to time or date and solely contingent upon the completion of a particular work assignment. Such notice does not meet the clear and unequivocal requirements of the controlling Agreement.

A purpose of Article IV is to give notice to the employe that he will be furloughed on a stated date in order that he will have some opportunity to exercise his displacement rights. Claimants suffered a loss of two (2) days' work as a direct result of Carrier's failure to comply with Article IV of the Agreement. The claim will be sustained.

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;

That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and

That the Agreement was violated.

AWARD