-- Award Number 17493
Docket Number MS-17204
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
ARTIES TO DISPUTE:
ERVIN VANHOOSE
THE CHESAPEAKE AND OHIO RAILWAY COMPANY
(CHESAPEAKE DISTRICT)
STATEIIIENT OF CLAIM: Question: As an Employee of Chesapeake
d Ohio Railway Company, and a member of Brotherhood of maintenance
way Employees Union, was Ervin VanHoose a protected employee under
e February 7, 1965, agreement, and did he meet the requirements of section
Article 1 of the February 7, 1965 agreement?
Ervin VanHoose returned from leave of absence from Railroad Co.
!pt. 8, 1964, and worked up until Nov. 7, 1964, when the job was
-olished, he was not recalled to work, and he applied for a leave of absence
fective May 1, 1965, and leave was canceled Dec. 10, 1965, and the com.ny refused to permit his return to work on the basis he was not a protected
iployee and at that time they were working four employees of less seniority
an Ervin VanHoose, which was in direct violation of the seniority rule, and
nnot be ruled out under the Feb. 7, 1965 agreement, as Ervin VanHoose
is employed on job on Oct. 1 1964, and had 15 or more days of comnsated service 1964.
Ervin VanHoose is entitled to pay from December 10, 1965 through
pril 18, 1966, the time he was held off the job, and work was furnished to
nior seniority employees.
FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board finds:
That the dispute was certified to the Third Division of the Adjustment
)aid ex parte by the complainant party and that hearing thereon was
aived.
The question presented to this Board by the Claimant was:
"As an Employee of Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company, and
a member of Brotherhood of maintenance of way Employees Union,
was Ervin VanHoose a protected employee under the February 7,
1965, agreement, and did he meet the requirements of section 1,
Article 1 of the February 7, 1965 agreement?"
Article VII of the Agreement of February 7, 1965, provides:
"ARTICLE VII-DISPUTES COMMITTEE
"Section 1-
"Any dispute involving the interpretation or application of any
of the terms of this agreement and not settled on the carrier may
be referred by either party to the dispute for decision to a committee consisting of two members of the Carriers' Conference
Committees signatory to this agreement, two members of the Employees' National Conference Committee signatory to this agreement,
and a referee to be selected as hereinafter provided. The referee
selected shall preside at the meetings of the committee and act as
chairman of the committee. A majority vote of the partisan members of the committee shall be necessary to decide a dispute, provided that if such partisan members are unable to reach a decision, the dispute shall be decided by the referee. Decisions so
arrived at shall be final and binding upon the parties to the dispute."
The question at issue was submitted by the Carrier to the Disput~
Committee established under Article VII of the Agreement of February
1965. On September 11, 1969, that Disputes Committee, which has be(
designated as Special Board of Adjustment No. 605, rendered Award No. 1,
disposing of the question at issue.
As Award 141 of Special Board of Adjustment No. 606 disposed of e
the issues involved in the dispute, the case before the Third Division will I
dismissed.
AWARD
Case dismissed.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division
ATTEST: S. $. Schulty
Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 26th day of September 1969.
Central Publishing Co,, Indianapolis, Ind. 46206 Printed in U.S.j
17593 2