CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE, ST. PAUL AND PACIFIC
RAILROAD COMPANY
Claim was filed with Superintendent Plattenberger under date of .January 4, 1966 and was declined by him in his letter of February 21, 1966 on the basis that employe Butler was a furloughed employe and therefore was not entitled to exercise seniority. Copy of that letter is submitted as Employes' Exhibit E.
The seniority roster issued July 9, 1964 for District No. 44 shows two employes with seniority dates established subsequent to February 4, 1964. The seniority roster issued January 1965 shows seven employes with seniority dates established during the period February 17, 1964 and December 21, 1964. The seniority roster issued July 1965 shows seven employes with seniority dates established during the period February 17, 1964 and January 1, 1965. The seniority roster issued January 1966 shows 9 employes with seniority dates established during the period February 17, 1964 and November 22, 1965.
In all, a total of ten employes established seniority in District No. 44 during the period February 17, 1964 through November 22, 1965.
Rule 12 (d) requires that furloughed employes be recalled in the order of their seniority when forces are increased or vacancies occur.
The fact that ten new employes were brought into service during the period employe Butler was absent, without recalling employe Butler and without objection on her part, shows conclusively that both the Carrier and empioye Butler were in accord in their understanding that she was on leave of absence and was not a furloughed employe subject to recall as provided in Rule 12(d).
The claim was appealed to Mr. S. W. Amour, Vice President-Labor Relations from the decision of Superintendent Plattemberger on April 14, 1966, and was declined by him in his letter of May 24, 1966.
Discussion of the claim during conference on November 4, 1966 produce no settlement. The time limits for submission of this case to the Board were extended by agreement between the parties, for a period of 30 days, or until March 24, 1967.
CARRIER'S STATEMENT OF FACTS: Claimant Butler, for reasons that will be fully explained in "Carrier's Position," was not entitled to exercise her seniority to displace the regularly assigned occupant of Steno-Clerk Position No. 7420 at Harlowton, Montana effective December 24, 1965, therefore, there occurred no violation of the Clerks' Agreement when she was not allowed to do so.
Attached hereto as Carrier's Exhibit A is copy of letter written by Mr. S. W. Amour, Vice President-Labor Relations, to Mr. H. C. Hopper, General Chairman, under date of May 24, 1966.
OPINION OF BOARD: Prior to February 4, 1964, the Claimant occupied a position of Trainmaster's clerk at Deer Lodge, Montana. The record discloses that due to personal sickness the Claimant advised Carrier that she was relinquishing her assignment and requested a leave of absence. The record further discloses that she was granted a leave of absence effective February 4, 1964, and was granted seven subsequent leaves of absence, consequently the last being a ninety (90) day leave of absence effective October 5, 1965. In December, 1965, the Claimant desired to return to active service and so notifined the Carrier that she wished to displace on Position No. 7420 which had
been bulletined during her absence. The Carrier advised Claimant to the effect that since she had voluntarily relinquished her assignment effective February 4, 1964, she was a furloughed employe and therefore not entitled to displace on this position. The Employes, however, have argued that Claimant was on a bona fide leave of absence, therefore pursuant to Rule 23 (e) of the controlling agreement should have been allowed to displace on Position No. 7420. Rule 23 (e) reads as follows:
Based on the record in this case we can only come to the conclusion that Claimant was on a bona fide leave of absence and should have been allowed to displace on Position No. 7420 effective December 24, 1965. We will sustain the claim for the period December 24, 1965, to March 6, 1966, since the record also discloses that on March 6, 1966, Claimant made herself unavailable for service, temporary or permanent, pursuant to Rule 25 (a).
FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, 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