PENN CENTRAL COMPANY-NORTHERN REGION
(Formerly New York Central Railroad Company-Northern
Region)
It would seem that we are completely apart on this case insofar as the applicability of the Time Limit Rule. In order to clarify the Carrier's position more, it should be first pointed out that due to the nature of the case, it is our position that the Time Limit Rule is not applicable under any circumstances; and secondly, even if it were applicable, such was waived under the circumstances that revolved around the meeting at my office on January 18 and 19, 1968. This position is more fully explained in my letter of March 19, 1968, and remains my position in this case.
Therefore, your request for the allowance of the initial claim remains declined.
OPINION OF BOARD: This dispute involves the question of whether or not the Controlling Agreement of the Retarder Technicians, Inspectors and Foremen employed in the signal department extends seniority rights to employees under the Craft Agreement of the signal department. Pertinent portions of the Retarder Technicians, Inspectors and Foremen's Agreement are as follows:
It is the Carrier's contention that the language in Rule l0A requiring that notice be sent to employees under the craft Agreement was for informational purposes only and in no wise obligated the Carrier to follow craft seniority in filling positions under the Inspector's Agreement.
While we find no basis to conclude that the language of Rule 10 A, relative to sending notices of vacancies to employees under the craft agreement, was included purely for information to such employees, we likewise however find no basis to conclude that the parties to the Agreement intended that seniority under the craft Agreement would become contractually binding upon the Carrier in filling vacancies, particularly when this rule is read in conjunction with Rules 6 and 7 of the Agreement.
We do not question the contractual abilities of the parties to extend terms of the Agreement to persons not the primary beneficiaries, but in such instances the extension must be clear and unambiguous. The language made the basis of this claim lacks the clarity necessary to bring employees under the craft Agreement within the Inspector's Agreement.
The Organization further contends that Article V, Section 1, under the August 21, 1954, National Agreement with respect to disposition of the claims within 60 days was violated by the Carrier and that this claim should be sustained on that basis. While we have concluded that the provisions of the Retarder Technicians, Inspectors and Foremen's Agreement are not available to the Claimant herein the parties hereto were parties to the Agreement of August 21, 1954 which recognized the right of the Organization to file and prosecute claims °. . . for and on behalf of the employees they represent . . .," that Agreement, is therefore applicable to the instant claim.
There is no evidence in the record of the Organization's express agreement to extend the time limit on the handling of the claim. There is no dispute, however, that the Carrier did deny the claim in the March 19, 1968 letter. Since this is a continuing claim, the liability of the Carrier is limited to the date when the Organization received Carrier's denial, that is, March 19, 1968. See National Disputes Committee decision No. 16 and Awards 14950, 14904, 14603, and 14502.
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
It is the Carrier's contention that the language in Rule l0A requiring that notice be sent to employees under the craft Agreement was for informational purposes only and in no wise obligated the Carrier to follow craft seniority in filling positions under the Inspector's Agreement.
While we find no basis to conclude that the language of Rule 10 A, relative to sending notices of vacancies to employees under the craft agreement, was included purely for information to such employees, we likewise however find no basis to conclude that the parties to the Agreement intended that seniority under the craft Agreement would become contractually binding upon the Carrier in filling vacancies, particularly when this rule is read in conjunction with Rules 6 and 7 of the Agreement.
We do not question the contractual abilities of the parties to extend terms of the Agreement to persons not the primary beneficiaries, but in such instances the extension must be clear and unambiguous. The language made the basis of this claim lacks the clarity necessary to bring employees under the craft Agreement within the Inspector's Agreement.
The Organization further contends that Article V, Section 1, under the August 21, 1954, National Agreement with respect to disposition of the claims within 60 days was violated by the Carrier and that this claim should be sustained on that basis. While we have concluded that the provisions of the Retarder Technicians, Inspectors and Foremen's Agreement are not available to the Claimant herein the parties hereto were parties to the Agreement of August 21, 1954 which recognized the right of the Organization to file and prosecute claims ". . . for and on behalf of the employees they represent . . .," that Agreement, is therefore applicable to the instant claim.
There is no evidence in the record of the Organization's express agreement to extend the time limit on the handling of the claim. There is no dispute, however, that the Carrier did deny the claim in the March 19, 1968 letter. Since this is a continuing claim, the liability of the Carrier is limited to the date when the Organization received Carrier's denial, that is, March 19, 1968. See National Disputes Committee decision No. 16 and Awards 14950, 14904, 14603, and 14502.
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
Claim denied in part and sustained in part in accordance with the Opinion.
The Majority, consisting of the Referee and the Carrier Members, correctly find that Article V was not complied with. They likewise correctly find no basis for Carrier's contention that the language of Rule 10 A, relative to sending notices of vacancies under the craft agreement, was included purely for information to such employes. Unfortunately the Majority then proceed to place the provision in a complete vacuum.
There is nothing, either expressed or implied, in either the Schedule (craft) agreement or the technicians agreement that limits the benefit of the first sentence of Rule 10 H of the technicians agreement to those who have previously established seniority under the technicians agreement.
The Majority's rejection of Claimant's superior seniority is repugnant to precedent and every known concept of seniority. Therefore, I dissent.