Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
Award No. 30929
Docket No. CL-31241
95-3-93-3-305
The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Elizabeth C. Wesman when award was rendered.
(Transportation · Communications
( International Union
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(Chicago, Central, and Pacific Railroad Company
STATEMENT. OF CLAIM: "Claim of the System Committee of the
Organization (GL-10958) that:
1. Carrier violated the Agreement at Council
Bluffs, Iowa and Waterloo, Iowa, on June 24,
25, (or] 26, 1992, or all, when it refused to
permit TCU Agreement covered Clerical employes
to perform service.
2. Carrier shall now compensate all TCU Clerical
Agreement covered employes at Council Bluffs,
and Waterloo, Iowa, who were improperly
prohibited from working on either June 24, 25,
and 26, or all, in an amount equal to what
such employes would have earned had they not
been prohibited by Carrier from performing
service.
3. Carrier shall also restore any benefits which
would have accrued to claimants had they not
been prohibited from working on the above
dates."
FINDINGS:
The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole
record and all the evidence, finds that:
The carrier or carriers and the employee or employees involved
in this dispute are respectively carrier and employee 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.
Form 1 Award No. 30929
Page 2 Docket No. CL-31241
95-3-93-3-305
This dispute evolved as a consequence of the June 1992 IAM
strike and subsequent three-day lockouts by various Carriers. The
Chicago, Central and Pacific Railroad, although not party to the
dispute, abolished certain Clerical positions during the lockout.
A claim was filed on behalf of the employees affected on July 21,
1992. In its denial of the claim, Carrier asserted that it had
complied with the provisions of Rule 24(e) which covers abolishment
of positions under "emergency" conditions.
Throughout the progression of this claim on the property,
Carrier asserted that a reduction in traffic had precipitated the
position abolishments, but offered no evidence to support that
assertion, despite the Organizations challenge that it do so. The
organization maintains, correctly, that if Carrier wishes to rely
upon the provisions of Rule 24(e) it must provide evidence that the
emergency conditions specified by that Rule did, in fact, exist.
(See, for example, Third Division Awards 29016, 21262 and 15858).
In this case, Carrier failed to offer concrete evidence until
presentation of its ex narte Submission to the Board. It is well
established on this and other Boards that the Board may not
consider such vo argument in its deliberations. Accordingly,
the instant claim is sustained.
AWARD
Claim sustained.
0 R D E R
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified
above, hereby orders that an Award favorable to the Claimants) be
made. The carrier is ordered to make the Award effective on or
before 30 days following the postmark date the Award is transmitted
to the parties.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 8th day of June 1995.