NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION Docket Number MW-26072
(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(The Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company
(Southern Region)
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:
(1) The Carrier violated the Agreement when it refused to permit
Trackman N. J. Yearego to displace a junior trackman on the Clifton Forge
Division on April 25 and 26, 1983 (System File C-TC-1759/MG-4022).
(2) The claimant shall be allowed sixteen (16) hours of pay because
of the violation referred to in Part (1) hereof."
OPINION OF BOARD: The Claim before the Board seeks compensation for April 25
and April 26, 1983. Essentially, the Organization claims
the Claimant was improperly denied the right to work both days.
It is undisputed that the Claimant was displaced on April 19, 1983,
from Force //1122. Also, at the same time a new force was being established at
Clifton Forge. Accordingly, under Rule 2, the Claimant had the following
options:
1. File a written request to remain in cut-off
status until he again stood for work with Force
1122.
2. File a written request to transfer to the
newly established force at Clifton Forge.
3. Displace a junior laborer within ten days,
notifying the proper Carrier representatives to
enable Carrier to contact the employee being
displaced before his tour of duty ends on the
day before his displacement becomes effective.
The Claimant did not exercise options one or two. Thus, most pertinent here
is Rule 2(s) which states:
"Displacement Notification -- Employees making
displacements under the provisions of Sections
(h) or (i) of this rule will be obligated to
notify the proper representative of the Railway
Company to enable them to notify the employee
being displaced before he quits work on the day
before his displacement becomes effective."
Award Number 26408 Page 2
Docket Number MW-26072
Against this background, it is clear to be eligible to work on April
25 or 26, 1983, the Organization would have had to produce evidence on-theproperty that the Claimant
employee no later than the end of the shift immediately prior to April 25,
1983.
The plain truth of the matter is that the critical evidence necessary to sustain the Claim is no
record shows the Claimant did not give notice of his intention to bump in a
timely manner. The Organization did attempt to rely on a written statement by
the Claimant but this was not presented on the property. The Carrier asserted
without rebuttal that Mr. Yearego informed supervision on April 22, 1983, that
he planned to make a displacement on April 26, 1983. However, he showed up
for work a day early on April 25, 1983, stating that he had changed his mind
but left abruptly when the displacement procedure was outlined to him. He
then left without stating his intentions with respect to his exercise of
seniority and did not return until April 27, 1983.
In view of the foregoing, the Claim is denied.
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.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division
Attest:
Wancya;J59^0r- Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 13th day of July 1987.