BROTHERHOOD OF RAILWAY, AIRLINE AND STEAMSHIP
CLERKS, FREIGHT HANDLERS, EXPRESS AND
STATION EMPLOYES
day, July 17, or Tuesday, July 18, 1967, it abolished sixteen (16) clerical positions at Omaha, Nebraska, by giving the occupants of those positions a verbal notice by telephone on Sunday, July 16, 1967, but written notices of abolishment of their positions were not received until July 19 or 20, 1967, which was not a proper sixteen hour notice of abolishment of their positions, as required by Rule 14 (c) of the Clerks' Agreement.
(16) claimants at the pro rata rate for one or two days' pay as follows:
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: The International Association of Machinists on the Missouri Parific Railroad went on strike at 12:01 A. M., Sunday, July 16, 1967, and at Omaha, Nebraska, Carrier officers or supervisors started at about 12:30 P. M. and continuing through 8 P. M., Sunday, July 16, 1967, calling the claimants, advising them their positions were abolished, except Cashier C. S. Miller, who was notified verbally at 8:30 A. M., Monday, July 17, 1967. The claimants did not receive written notice of abolishment of their positions until July 19 or 20, 1967.
Under date of August 12, 1967, the Division Chairman wrote to the Division Superintendent, filing claims in behalf of the claimants and copy of that letter is here quoted:
Claims are filed as follows for Clerical Employes at Omaha, Nebraska, as a result of violation of Rule 14 of the Clerks' Agreement, when the employes were not given an advance, written notice of the abolishment of their positions, effective July 17, and 18, 1967, as a result of the Machinist Strike, which started at or about 12:01 A. M., Sunday, July 16, 1967, by that Craft picketing the Railroad's facilities:
(c) Rules, agreements or practices, however established, that require more than sixteen hours' advance notice before abolishing positions or making force reductions are hereby modified so as not to require more than sixteen hours such advance notice under
OPINION OF BOARD: The issue involved in this case is whether Carrier complied with the Agreement when it abolished Claimants' positions through verbal rather than written notice.
Both parties agree that because of a strike an emergency existed, and that the 16-hour time requirement of Rule 14 of the Agreement was met.
In drafting this Agreement the parties provided in the non-emergency abolishment procedure that notice would be given "in writing."
They failed to do so when the emergency abolishment procedure was written. We can not conclude, as Claimants believe, that the words "such advance notice" was intended to require the Carrier to provide employes with written notification in emergency situations as exist in this case; nor do we find Section 14 (d) requires written notice in emergency cases.
The necessary language to effect written notice in emergency situations could have been included in the Agreement if it had been the intent of the parties. This Board has often held that it can not, through its interpretation, in effect change the Agreement.
It is noted that the Organization subsequent to this incident asked through a Section 6 notice that Section 14 (c) be amended to include the provision "in writing." The negotiation of such an insertion would be the proper approach and not through an Award of this Board.
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;