NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood (GL-6498) that:
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: The cooper-cleaning tracks at East Buffalo, New York are operated by the Carrier seven (7) days each week, and through long established practice, this facility has been subject to the provisions of Rule 23 of the basic agreement. The rule provides, among other things, a formula to be used in arriving at the regularly assigned eight (8) hour positions to be established each quarter. The fourth quarter schedule for 1966 furnished by the Carrier indicated fourteen (14) regularly assigned positions, ten of which had an assigned work week Monday through Friday with Saturday and Sunday rest days. The three positions here involved had an assigned work week as follows: Employ e Title of Position Assigned Work Week Rest Days
her 4, 1966, claimants B. J. Pecky, Edward Smith and Edward Dyttmer were notified that because of this emergency, work at the Cooper-Cleaning track no longer existed and could not be performed, and their positions were abolished on November 5,1966.
Under date of December 22, 1965 (Carrier's Exhibit "A") claim was instituted with the Agent by the Local Chairman, alleging a violation of Rules 23 and 28 of the applicable agreement. Claim was denied under date of February 15, 1967, and thereafter handled on appeal up to and including Carrier's highest officer designated to handle such matters. Claim was discussed in conference on October 17, 1967 and denied with denial confirmed on November 17, 1967 (Carrier's Exhibit "B"). Subsequent exchanges of correspondence is evidenced by the following exhibits:
OPINION OF BOARD: At approximately 3:30 P.M. Friday, November 4, 1966, Carrier notified Claimants that because of emergency conditions due to severe snow storm, their services would not be required and they should not report to work the following day, November 5. It has been agreed by both of the parties that the positions of Claimants were not abolished; therefore, it follows that Claimant's positions were temporarily suspended. Under the controlling Award No. 115 of Special Board of Adjustment No. 605, Rules Nos. 12 and 23 (having to do with "abolishment of positions" and "force reductions") are not applicable to the instant dispute. We are concerned only with the interpretation of Rule 28, which is:
In other words, this Board has been called upon to determine whether or not the snow storm described in the record created a "condition beyond the control of Carrier" which would justify the temporary suspension of the named Claimants on the date in question.
The record discloses that Carrier's operations were seriously interferred with; that there was no need for Claimant's services on November 5, 1966 (cleaning and coopering cars); and that Claimants were put back to work promptly when the need for their services were required.
This Board finds that under the provisions of the above quoted Rule 28, Carrier had the prerogative to temporarily suspend the positions of the three named Claimants for the reason that the snow storm created a condition beyond control of Carrier. Because of this condition, services of Claimants were not required. Therefore, this claim will be denied.
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