NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
Form 1 THIRD DIVISIONAward No. 29646
Docket No. MW-28161
93-3-87-3-692
The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Edwin H. Benn when award was rendered.
(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(Union Pacific Railroad Company (former
(Missouri Pacific Railroad Company)
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
"Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:
(1) The Carrier violated the Agreement when it failed to
recall furloughed Trackman G.R. Schaffner to service on and
subsequent to February 10, 1986 (Carrier's File 247-7304).
(2) Because of the aforesaid violation, Trackman G.R.
Schaffner shall be allowed one hundred sixty (160) hours of pay at
the trackman's straight time rate."
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 employe 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.
Claimant held greater seniority on the Arkansas Division than
the employee assigned the position. Neither Claimant nor the
junior employee held seniority on the District Tie Gang roster.
Claimant worked on Crossing Gang 5854 on the Arkansas Division
until February 10, 1986, when the Gang was moved to the Louisiana
Division, at which time Claimant was furloughed. On March 7, 1986,
Claimant was instructed to report to the District Tie Gang on the
Louisiana Division as an Extra Trackman. Claimant arrived on March
10, 1986, and learned that the junior employee had been employed on
the District Tie Gang on the Louisiana Division from February 10,
1986 to March 7, 1986, while Claimant was on furlough. Claimant
seeks compensation for that 20 working-day period arguing that his
greater Arkansas Division seniority required that he be used on the
District Tie Gang on the Louisiana Division prior to the junior
employee.
Form 1 Award No. 29646
Page 2 Docket No. MW-28161
93-3-87-3-692
Rule 2(a) states:
"Except as otherwise provided in these rules,
seniority rights of employes to new positions or
vacancies, or in the exercise of their seniority
will be confined to the seniority district as
they are constituted on the effective date of
this Agreement."
There is no Rule support for the organization's position that
Claimant's superior Arkansas Division seniority entitled him to
greater rights than the junior employee where neither held
seniority on the Division where the work at issue existed.
Claimant's superior seniority only entitled him to rights on the
Arkansas Division. See Third Division Award 26252:
"While this Board has long recognized the
importance of seniority (Third Division Awards
18686, 13566 and a host of others), seniority
rights must be specified in the Agreement in
order to be protected. As we said in Third
Division Award 18091:
`It is axiomatic that seniority is
governed strictly by the provisions
in the Agreement. Employes are entitled to no more than the contract
authorizes. In the absence of any
specific seniority rights, Carrier
has the sole prerogative to assign
employes when and where needed. The
extent and limitation of the employe's rights are to be determined from the language in the
Given the specificity of Rule 2(a), this Claim must be denied.
A W A R D
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division
Attest:
ancy J. ~er, Secretary to the Board
Dated at Chicago, Illinois this 7th day of June, 1993.