Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 27733
THIRD DIVISION Docket No. MW-27060
89-3-86-3-111
The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Rodney E. Dennis when award was rendered.

(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE:


STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:

(1) The Carrier violated the Agreement when it laid off the members of Extra Gangs 6501 and 6507 (listed below) without benefit of five (5) work days' advance notice (System File D-3-85/MW-11-85).































(2) Because of the aforesaid violation, Messrs. T. Orenday, E. Lovato and J. Ramirez shall be allowed forty (40) hours of pay at their respective straight time rat allowed sixteen (16) hours of pay at their respective straight time rates."
Form 1 Award No. 27733
Page 2 Docket No. MW-27060
89-3-86-3-111
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 employes 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.



On November 27, 1984, Carrier layed off all employes in Extra Gangs 6501 and 6507. At issue here is whether Claimants received five working days', notice (as required by Rule 12) of the impending layoff. If they did, the case is denied. If they did not, some compensation may be due some of the Claimants.

In its review of this case, the Board is persuaded that the following chronology of events has taken place:







This Board has concluded from this review that Carrier made every attempt possible to fulfill the five-day notice requirement. The employes were made fully aware that a layoff was in the offing on November 12, 1984. A notice was posted on the bulletin board and verbal notice was again given on Monday, November 19, at 7:30 AM, before the work day began. This Board is of the opinion that November 19, 1984, can appropriately be considered the first day of notice, since the work day had not begun when the notice was posted and the information it contained was relayed to the gangs. If November 19, 1984, is considered day one of the notice, then November 27 is appropriate day five and proper notice was given.

As to the separate part of this claim involving the Foreman and two senior men who were excluded from the layoff notice, there is evidence that they all worked beyond the November 27, 1984 deadline.
Form 1 Award No. 27733
Page 3 Docket No. MW-27060
89-3-86-3-111
The Board, on the whole record, has concluded that Carrier did not
violate the Agreement and the claim is denied.






                          By Order of Third Division


Attest:
        ancy J. De ~'- Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 2nd day of March 1989.