Claimants in this case were on furloughed status at the time of this dispute and have each established and hold seniority within various classifications in the Maintenance of Way Department on the Columbus Division Seniority District.
The issue in this case is whether the Carrier violated Rule 3, Section 3(d) when it allegedly failed to assign the furloughed Claimants to positions within seven days from the close of the Claimants' successful bidding for the positions in question.
The Organization contends that the Carrier did not award the claimants the positions to which they were entitled until several days after the appropriate dates for such awards in violation of the rule cited.
The Carrier contends that it was not obligated to award the positions in question within a specific period of time and that it has the right to extend the time within which it must award positions advertised whenever it perceives an economical or efficient reason to do so. The Carrier contends that various aspects of Rule 3 and Rule 4 apply to the Carrier's responsibility in- recalling and assigning furloughed employees to awarded positions and that it did not have to do so within the seven-day period that the Organization contends it should have done.
This Board has thoroughly reviewed the record in this case, and we find that the carrier has not lived up to the requirements of Rule 3(d) because it did not start the job assignments resulting from the awards within seven days after the close of the advertisement. Therefore, the claim must be sustained.
In this case, the Carrier bulletined a number of gangs, with the bids closing on March 24, 1986. The Carrier issued assignment bulletins dated March 26, 1986. However, the Claimants did not begin work on their new assignments until April 7, 1986.
As stated above, Rule 3(d) requires that awards will be made within seven days after the close of the advertisement. In Award No. 24 of Public Law Board 3781, the majority held that, " ..the first paragraph in Rule 3(d) means that the job assignment resulting from the awards will start not later than seven days after the close of the advertisement." This Board can find no fault with the reasoning of Public Law Board 3781. Consequently, we will follow that ruling.
The Carrier raises the issue that the claim is invalid because the Organization did not name all of the Claimants whose rights Form 1 Award No. 29578
were allegedly violated. However, this Board finds that it was the Carrier who made the awards of the jobs, and that information was easily within its own records and knowledge. The Carrier was not prejudiced in the least with the lack of the exact names of the individuals involved being set out on the claim form.
This Board recognizes that it may have been more efficient and economic for the Carrier to start the employees a week later. However, the rule requires that the employees who are awarded their bids go to work in the new job within seven days, or at least be paid for it. If the Carrier wants some flexibility for economic reasons, then it must seek its remedy at the bargaining table and not through this proceeding. Consequently, the Board has no choice but to sustain the claim.
This matter having returned to the Board on the request of the employees for an interpretation, and the Board having reviewed the written arguments and listened to the oral arguments of the parties, we hereby find that the Award that was rendered by this Board on March 9, 1993, was clear and sustained the claim in its entirety as it was written by the organization representative. This Board does not believe that there is any need for any interpretation, as the claim requested is clear and the decision sustaining the claim is just as clear.
In its response to the employees' request for an interpretation, the Carrier raises arguments which were never raised on the property. This Board did not address those arguments because they were not raised on the property, and, pursuant to Circular I, we are jurisdictionally unable to consider arguments which are raised for the first time before this Board.
This Board finds that the request for the interpretation is denied, as the original Award is clear and unambiguous.
Referee Peter R. Meyers, who sat with the Division as a neutral member when Award 29578 was adopted, also participated with the Division in making this Interpretation.