Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 28160
THIRD DIVISION Docket No. MW-28483
89-3-88-3-286
The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Charlotte Gold when award was rendered.
(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(St. Louis Southwestern Railway Company
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:
(1) The Carrier violated the Agreement when it removed L. Plummer
from service beginning on July 13, 1987 (System File MW-87-39-CB/464-62-A).
(2) The Claimant shall be reinstated with seniority, vacation and
all other rights unimpaired. The dismissal letter of July 13, 1987 shall be
removed from his record and he shall be allowed seven hundred fifty-two (752)
hours at his straight time rate of pay and pay for all overtime worked by the
gang to which he was assigned, from July 14, 1987 through November 20, 1987."
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.
The Organization maintains that Carrier violated Article 2, Section
4, of the controlling Agreement when it removed Claimant from service on July
13, 1987. Following his furlough as a Track Laborer on the Pine Bluff Division, Claimant sought empl
to return all Company material to the Roadmaster.
Claimant had a seniority date of May 20, 1974. Clearly, he was not a
new employee when he sought employment on the Kansas City Division. As noted
by the General Chairman in his appeal to the Labor Relations Officer on August
26, 1987:
Form 1 Award No. 28160
Page 2 Docket No. MW-28483
89-3-88-3-286
...we have had St. Louis Southwestern Railway
employees work from one seniority district to
another seniority district for many years without being considered as new employees. When
they are furloughed on their home seniority
district and the Company has a need for employees on another seniority district they are
allowed to perform service on that district and
retain their seniority on their home seniority
district."
Given this long-standing practice and the fact that Claimant was
apparently an acceptable employee to Carrier on the Pine Bluff Division for a
number of years, this Board can find no basis for Carrier's conclusion that he
was still in his probationary period in July 1987, when it notified him that
his application for employment had been disapproved.
A W A R D
Claim sustained.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division
Attest: ,
Nancy J. -Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 16th day of October 1989.