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.
Claimant established and holds seniority as a Machine Operator in the Track Subdepartment. Prior to the time of this dispute, Claimant was furloughed due to force reductions.
On February 19, 1991, Claimant received a phone call from Roadmaster Brown advising him to contact the Administrative Assistant to the Division Engineer with regard to vacancies on the Birmingham North End Seniority District. However, when Claimant did as he was instructed, he was advised that there was no available vacancy which his seniority would permit him to hold.
On February 27, Claimant again contacted Mr. Marshall, who advised Claimant to make an appointment for a return-to-work physical. Claimant completed the medical requirements on March 7, 1991, and was advised that he was medically qualified to return to work on March 25, 1991.
When Claimant returned to work, he learned that two junior employees had been recalled to service ahead of him. The Organization filed a claim alleging Carrier had violated Rules 5, 6 and 22 of the Agreement when it "misinformed" Claimant with regard to Roadmaster Brown's original phone call.
The Organization replied to Carrier's denial asserting that Claimant should have been notified to return to work on February 20, 1991, and begin his suspension on that same date. Therefore, if the ten day suspension was subtracted, Claimant is still entitled to compensation from March 6 to March 22, 1991, according to the Organization.
It has been the Organization's position that Claimant was entitled to return to service some time before March 25, 1991. In the original claim, it is alleged that Claimant should have been returned to work on February 20 and that two junior employees were recalled to positions before Claimant. Once the Division Engineer explained that Claimant was not qualified for the two positions awarded to the junior employees, and that Claimant was required to serve a ten day suspension, the Organization modified its position maintaining that Claimant should be compensated for the period March 6, to March 22, 1991.
Carrier effectively refuted each of the Organization's allegations with regard to this issue. As the moving party, the Organization bore the burden of providing sufficient evidence to the Board to support this claim. However, the Organization was not successful in that endeavor. Therefore, this claim is denied.
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that an award favorable to the Claimant(s) not be made.