were all notified by telephone of the abolishment of their positions, which they accepted without protest.
Confirmation of the abolishment, in writing, was sent to each employe at his home, but was not received within the sixteen-hour notice period.
Employes now claim written notice was not given by the Carrier within the sixteen-hour period stipulated by the August 21, 1954 Agreement, and that they were not given notice to return to work at their usual starting time on July 18, 1967.
OPINION OF BOARD: Due to a national strike by the Shop Craft employes, effective 12:01 A. M., July 17, 1967, the Carrier abolished positions of employes in all crafts on 16 hours' notice under the emergency provisions of the National Agreements of August 21, 1954 and February 7, 1965.
Picket lines were established at 12:01 A. M., July 17, 1967, and although the strike was officially terminated at 9:30 P. M., July 17, 1967, their picket lines were not removed until 11:00 A. M., July 18, 1967. The record is not clear as to the reason for the delay, We can only speculate that this delay was due to the time consumed in transmitting the message through the various echelons of the Organization.
The number of claimants listed in the claim for the purpose of clarification can be divided into two groups, groups A and B.
Group A are those claimants who were notified by telephone that because of the strike, their positions were being abolished. They have submitted a claim for a day's pay on the grounds that although they were orally notified of the abolishments within the 16 hour time limit, they did not receive written notifications within the 16 hour time limitation.
Group B consists of those employes who allege that they were not recalled to duty at the termination of the strike in order of seniority, thus resulting in some junior employes being recalled before senior employes. They, too, demand a day's pay for July 18, 1967.
Insofar as Group A is concerned, the provisions of the Agreement upon which reliance is made by the Organization, requires only that at least 16 hours' notice be given to the employes whose positions are to be abolished, There is no provision or, indeed, requirement that the notice must be in writing. We have so held in many other awards. Hence, that portion of the c:aim affecting employes in Group A will be denied.
Group B employes base their claim on an alleged violation of Article IV, Section 14, the pertinent portion of which reads:
We agree with the petitioner that the above cited language requires the recall of employes in the order of their seniority following force reductions. We also submit that the abolishment of positions such as in this dispute is equivalent to a force reduction. However, since the picket lines were not removed until 11:00 A. M., we can find no basis in the Agreement for making it mandatory for Carrier to pay each of those employes in Group B a full day's pay. It is almost indisputable that these employes if called prior to their starting times on July 18, would not have crossed the picket lines. Such a situation, for all intents and purposes in the field of Labor-Management Relations, is practically tantamount to the concept of Judicial Notice in our Court systems. Accordingly, we find that Carrier did violate the aforecited Article IV, Section 14, and must compensate those employes in Group B from 11:00 A. M. on July 18, 1967 to the end of their tour of duty on that day.
We will sustain the claim of these employes in Group B in accordance with the opinion as expressed.
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