' :ZATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTi.MIT BOARD
THIRD DVI$ION Docket Number MW-23752
Robert E. Peterson, Referee
(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
PARTIES 7n DISPUTE:
(Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific Railroad Company
STAT;WTT OF CLA=d: "Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:
(1) The Carrier violated the Agreement when it improperly closed
the service record of T. E. Myers (System File Cg53/D-22?3-1).
(2)
T. E. buyers be returned to service with seniority and all
other rights unimpaired and he shall be compensated for all wage loss suffered."
OPIITION CP BOA.RD: 'tee basic issue in dispute in this case concerns a question
as to whether or not Claimant's purported inability to report
for work upon recall from furlough because he maintains he was without reliable
transportation represents "unavoidable cause' as that term is set forth in Rule
11 of the Agreemeat.
Rule 11 states:
"When forces are increased, except as provided in Rule
8(c),
the senior, available, laid off employes in the respective classifications will be notified and they
within seven
(7)
days after being notified at their last known
address, unless prevented from doing so by reason of sic'emess
or other unavoidable cause. Failure to return to service in
accordance with the provisions of this rule will cause forfeiture of seniority rights."
Claimant contends that when he received his recall notice he was not
able to report to Avery, Idaho, 300 miles from where he resided in Three Forks,
I "ontana, because he did not bLve money or transpor tion in which to get there
-A
ts,
or on which to live after he got there. Also to be noted, however, in a letter
he wrote Carrier is the fact that in addition to attributing his inability to
report due to "reoccurring car troubles" and a personal belief that lodging
which
the Carrier said would be available would not be at all suitable, Claim
ant also stated:
"As I am trying to find another ,job I feel I should be here
in case one of my prospects comes through. However I am still
available for my last headquarters ,job."
Award Number
24337
Docket ,cumber MW-23752
Page 2
We are not convinced the circumstances Claimant relates as prohibiting
him from accepting timely recall to service represent "unavoidable cause" within
the meaning and intent of Rule 11. It was incumbent upon Claimant to get to
work whether that meant higher degrees of automobile preparedness, or by means
of alternate transportation. This, and the other reasons he advanced for not
reporting do not represent mitigating circumstances in relation to his obligation
to be available for recall or forfeit his seniority. It was therefore proper
for Carrier to have removed Claimant's name from the seniority roster and to
have closed its service record on him.
FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record
and all the evidence, finds and holds:
That the parties waived oral hearing;
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
That the Agreement was not violated.
A W A R D
Claim denied.
ATTEST: Acting Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
y
NATIONAL RAILROAD ALUUSTMIT BOARD
By Order of Third Division
Dated at Chicago. Illinois, this
27th day o3 Awil 1983.
e~CE
y;il 3 ~',~'
~,Cy"cooo
~fitcO
~e
w
