PENN CENTRAL COMPANY
(New Haven Region)
1. Carrier violated TCU Agreement as amended, when on July 16, 1967, it failed to properly notify each and every employe named in Groups A and B hereunder of the Carrier's decision to make force reductions by abolishing the position of each named employe.
2. Carrier further violated TCU Agreement as amended when it failed to properly compensate each and every employe named in Groups A and B for the loss of eight (8) hours' pay at straight time rate for Monday, July 17, 1967.
H. Smith, Jr.; Ernest 1. Smith; Everett E. Sanderson; George F. Proper; John Gordan; Bert A. Johnson; Bruce A. Hill; Hugh G. Orr; Charles R. Sisson; Edward L. Calamar; William J. Coutanche; Peter N. Varrica; Charles K. Stiles; Donald J. Houston; Robert A. Hirst; Joseph M. McCabe; John F. Cody; James H. Moran; William H. Smith; Robert L. Goudreau; Oscar Demers; Francis S. Bojdunik; Thomas J. Richards; Norman H. LaMothe; John J. Walsh; Clifford J. Sweeney; Raymond E. Phippen; Paul E. Goudreau; Joseph E. Gerstenlauer; Joseph R. Serpa; Elliot V. Swan; Joseph H. Iskierski; Ralph 13. Hopper; William J. Riordan; Glennen P. Joly, Ellsworth E. Williams; Raymond F. Mastantuono; Eugene E. Brown, John J. Handrigen, 3rd; Norman G. Desrosiers; John J. Corrigan; Harold G. Andrews; George J. Bundza; Leonard J. Walczak, George T. Smith; Donald W. McCaw; Charles E. Barry; Everett D. Kingsley; Louis G. Brousseau; Leo P. Rushlow; Raymond H. Leonard; Robert R. Chaput; Alfred D. D'Almeida; Russell J. Monast; Wallace H. Parenteau; and John V. Sanocki.
(8) hours at time and one-half rate of position, S. S. Operator Mystic, Ct., account improperly abolishing first trick S. S. Operator's position on July 17, 1967, which was also claimant's Birthday Holiday.
Roster District, Boston Division, not named above whose position was improperly abolished on July 17th, 1967.
1967, and coutinaing into the morning and afternoon of Monday, July 17th, 1967, claimants listed below received, via telephone, message from Chief or Trick Train Dispatchers as follows:
homes, and they began calling the employes under thei:· respective jurisdictions, advising them not to report for work on the 17th. Those employes who were on duty on the middle and last tricks were notified to finish their tour of duty and not to report until further advised.
Claims were initiated on behalf of the claimants and progressed through the prescribed channels on the property, up to and including the undersigned.
Claims were denied on the property based upon the grounds that they represented a blanket claim in that no consideration was given each claimant regarding the actual facts in connection with each employe named and that the 16-hour advance notice requirement is null and void in the circumstances involved in the instant dispute. The Employes have not presented any evidence which would support in any way that the claimants would have crossed the picket lines and reported for duty on the day in question, nor is there any evidence that any of the claimants reported for duty and were refused the opportunity to go to work.
Copy of Agreement between the parties dated September 1, 1949, as amended, is on file with your Board and is, by reference, made a part of this submission.
OPINION OF BOARD: The claims herein arose in connection with the abolishment of positions or force reduction as result of a strike by Shop Craft employes effective 12:01 A. M., July 17, 1967.
:wc: reject such contention. The rule, by its own terms, is clearly applicable in strike situations. The Carrier also contends that the claims presented represent blanket claims. We agree with this contention only so far as Part 4 of Claim No. 2 is concerned, and it will be dismissed. The balance of the claims meet the procedural requirements of the Agreement.
The Carrier contends further that some of the Claimants were "spare" employes, and not subject to Article VI of the August 21, 1954 Agreement, which it contends applies only to regular employes. The Board is of the opinion, and so holds, that all employes who were scheduled to work positions covered by the Agreement on July 17, 1967, were entitled to sixteen hours' notice under Article VI of the August 21, 1954 Agreement, whether such employes were considered regular, extra or spare employes. The sixteen-hour notice woul.l not lip applicable to spare or extra employes who were not scheduled to work on July 7, 1967.
The Petitioner contends that some of the claims were not properly denied because the Superintendent allegedly gave no reason for denial when the time slips were submitted by Claimants. The Carrier contends that it is normal procedure on the property to deny individual time returns by stamping them "Declined-no basis" over the Superintendent's signature or in behalf of the Superintendent and return the time slip to the Claimant; that in such cases formal or written claim is then made to the Superintendent, and that this has been the procedure for years. Under the circumstances, the Board finds no proper basis for the contention of the Petitioner in this respect, and it is also rejected.
Proceeding to the merits of the dispute, the record shows that Claimants were advised by telephone not to report for work on July 17, 1967. In some cases the hours of assignment of the Claimants are given, but the actual time of telephone notice is not given. In other cases the time of telephone notice is given, but the hours of assignment are not given.
In the application of the sixteen-hour rule it is established (1) that telephone notice is sufficient and written notice is not required (Awards 17014, 17674, 17964); and (2) that the sixteen-hour notice applies to clock hours from the time the notice was actually given (Awards 17708, 17780, 17958, 17964). In our prcsant case those employes who may have received less than sixteen hours' notice from the time contacted by telephone to the starting time of the position scheduled to work on July 17, 1967, are entitled to pay from starting time of assignment to the expiration of sixteen hours from time of notice at straight time rate, except where July 17, 1967 may have been a holiday or assigned rest day on which they had been scheduled to work, in which event they are entitled to time and one-half rate. Those who actually received sixteen hours' notice prior to the starting time of the positions scheduled to work on July 17, 1967, are not entitled to additional compensation.
From the record before us it is impossible to make :in accurate determination as to the actual amount of notice each of the Claimants received, although it is evident that some of the Claimants actually received less than sixteen hours. The compensatory portion of the claim will, therefore, be remanded to the parties to attempt to arrive at a settlement in line with the foregoing. If satisfactory sot.l-ricnt cannot be arrived at with respect to any particular Claimant or Claimants within sixty days from date of this Award, any remaining unsettled question may be returned to the Board jointly or ex parte by either side.
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