~~
ii~:
:NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
Award Number 25004
C; ~%' y , _ ~~ °, THIRD DIVISION Locket Number MW-25081
a~tt0 ~~"J -
Thomas F. Carey, Referee
(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:
(1) The Carrier violated the Agreement when it failed to permit
Trackman J. L. Harlow to displace a junior trackman (A. Puckett) on the Clifton
Forge Division December 10 through December 23, 1981, both dates inclusive
(System File C-TC-1273/MG-3331).
(2) Claimant J. L. Harlow shall be allowed pay (straight time and
overtime) equal to that paid to Trackman A. Puckett during the claim period."
OPINION OF BOARD: The Claimant was furloughed from his Trackman position by
reason of force reduction and filed his cut-off notice at this
time. Subsequently, the Claimant advised the Track Supervisor that he wished
to displace on his home division (Clifton Forge), but was informed that there
were no positions available.
The record indicates that the Claimant was offered the opportunity to
accept extra work on a day-to-day basis, but that he declined. Testimony also
shows that Trackman Puckett also furloughed and junior in seniority to the
Claimant, requested to protect extra work and reported each day to find out if
work was available. Nothing in the record indicates this work was not extra
and had Claimant properly requested this assignment, his seniority would have
prevailed. Additionally, Third Division Award No. 22517 (Sickles) held that:
"Notwithstanding the language of the rule
concerning protection
of
seniority,
we
find absolutely nothing unreasonable about the
suggestion of Carrier to the Claimant, and his failure to comply
therewith resulted in his failure to work during the pertinent period
of time."
Similarly, in Referee Wolf's Third Division Award 13445, he found:
"Bidding on a regular assignment is not equivalent to exercising a
desire to displace on a temporary position. Carrier was under no
obligation to assume that an employe wished to fill a temporary job
because he expressed an interest in the permanent job.·
The Claimant was afforded the opportunity to protect extra work
assignments, but declined and is thus unable to submit proof of an Agreement
violation.
~EIVEp
Award Number 25004 NOTOe
1884
Locket Number MW-25081
~~°'38_o Office.
and
FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the w 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.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division
ATTEST:
4~oz
Nancy . pKver - Execuive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 26th day of September 1984.