Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 27856
THIRD DIVISION Docket No. CL-27595
89-3-87-3-38
The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Marty E. Zusman when award was rendered.
(Transportation Communications International Union
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(Delaware and Hudson Railway Company
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood
(GL-10151) that:
1. Carrier violated the NEW Protective Agreement dated March 21,
1966 as adopted on the Delaware and Hudson Railway Company, when on November
1, 1981, at 0001 hours, it arbitrarily and capriciously abolished the Position
of Telegrapher-Towerman, Position No. 2359-0759, at Hudson, Pennsylvania without giving the required
2. As a result of such arbitrary and capricious action on the part
of the Carrier, it shall now be required to compensate Mr. N. Andzulis for one
day's pay at the pro rata rate for the following dates, November 1, 4, 5, 6,
7, 8, 11, 12, 13 and 14, 1981.
3. Carrier shall further be required to compensate Claimant N.
Andzulis interest in the amount of 18 per cent compounded annually on the
anniversary date of this claim for all amounts due in Item 2 supra."
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.
Parties to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing thereon.
By notice of July 20, 1981, Claimant was notified of the abolishment of his Telegrapher/Towerman
abolished, the Organization filed Claim alleging Carrier failure to give the
required five (5) day advance notice as per Section Five (5), Paragraph (f) of
the July 1, 1968 (N&W) Agreement.
Form 1 Award No. 27856
Page 2 Docket No. CL-27595
89-3-87-3-38
The Carrier denied any Agreement violation. It argued that there had
been a severe decline in business and it had followed the Agreement. Section
2(b) required advance notice of force reduction and such notice had been
given. It denied that an additional five day advance notice on top of the
July 20, 1981, notice was required.
In this contract interpretation case the Board has searched the
record on the property for argument and evidence necessary to support the
Organization's interpretation. It has long been held that the weight of the
evidence for any claim is the responsibility of the moving party (Third Division Award 24965). There
by assertion. After a thorough review of all issues raised by the parties on
the property and in their ex ap rte Submissions, the Board finds that the Claim
must be denied. The Organization has failed to meet its burden of proof.
A W A R D
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division
Attest:
X
Nancy ever - Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 13th day of April 1989.