Form I NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 26847
THIRD DIVISION Docket No. MW-25677
88-3
The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee George S. Roukis when award was rendered.
(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(Escanaba and Lake Superior Railroad Company
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:
1. The Carrier violated the Agreement when it furloughed Messrs. J.
Walling and K. Lykins on or about September 2, 1981 and retained junior
employes in service (System File ELST-2548).
2. President John Larkin failed to disallow the claim (appealed to
him under date of December 15, 1981) as contractually stipulated within Rule
52(a).
3. As a consequence of either or both (1) and/or (2) above, the
claimants shall
'each be allowed pay for all time worked by the
junior employes Latvis and Dishaw, claim to
continue until Mr. Walling and Mr. Lykins are
allowed to return to service."
FINDINGS:
The Third Division of the Adjustment Board upon the whole record and
all the evidence, finds that:
The carrier or carriers and the employe or employees involved in this
dispute are respectively carrier and employes within the meaning of the
Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 1934.
This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the
dispute involved herein.
Parties to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing thereon.
In this dispute, which involves an asserted seniority violation, the
Organization also contends that Carrier violated Rule 52(a), when Carrier
failed to respond to the Organization's grievance appeal letter, dated
December 15, 1981. In effect the Organization avers that Carrier failed to
notify, within sixty (60) days, the General Chairman in writing that said
Claim was disallowed.
Form 1 Award No. 26847
Page 2 Docket No. MW-25677
88-3
In reviewing the on-situs appeals record and the detailed thoughtful
Submissions covering key substantive and procedural points we must agree with
the organization's position that a procedural violation occurred. This determination is consistent w
and our correlative judicial finding therein that the Claim was properly
constituted.
On the other hand, we cannot disregard the rather obvious lengthy
hiatus, between the Carrier's failure to disallow the Claim and the Organization's response to this
will attach to the affected period up to March 24, 1983. This was the date
the General Chairman notified Carrier of the applicatory pertinence of Rule 52
(a). It would indeed be inappropriate to conclude otherwise, in view of the
inexplicable reciprocal delay manifested.
A WARD
Claim sustained in accordance with the Findings.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division
Attest:
Nancy J. - Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 25th day of February 1988.