In the fourth period of the program, Claimants were only afforded five eight-hour days of classroom training instead of the ten eight-hour days called for in the Agreement.
The Organization filed claims on behalf of Claimants asserting violation of the Training Program Agreement when it reduced the classroom training from ten eighthour days to five ei additional five eight-hour days of classroom training as stipulated in the Training Program Agreement.
Carrier responded that the last training session was restructured and condensed to cover the same material in 40 hours that traditionally took 80 hours of classroom time. and that it felt Claimants were properly trained and that they passed all tests. Further, that if Claimants felt the need for additional training, they should contact their Supervisor and request same.
Although the parties' Agreement calls for ten eight-hour days of classroom training in each of four 130 day training periods, there is no evidence in this record that Claimants were not afforded the same training in 40 hours as previously afforded in 80 hours called for in the Agreement. Neither do we find evidence that Claimants felt the need for the additional 40 hours of classroom training as they made no request for same to their Supervisor.
In the Board's opinion, Carrier would have been well advised to consult with the Organization representative on its restructured and condensed program prior to going forward with it. If it had, these claims probably could have been avoided. Form 1 Award No. 32724
Carrier's unilateral action placing its restructured and condensed program in effect violated the specific provision of the Agreement, but the Board concludes that there is no justification for it to sustain the Organization's request for Carrier to provide Claimants with an additional five days of classroom training. This is so for the reason that during the handling on the property, Carrier offered to afford Claimants additional training if they felt the need for it. No request was made by either of them for additional training and in the absence thereof, it would be a vain act for this Board to now direct that five days additional training be given.
Throughout the handling, the Organization argued that although offered additional training on request, Claimants were not required to request same. The Board disagrees. If Claimants felt they did not receive sufficient training in 40 hours, they were obligated to step forward and advise Carrier that they felt the need for the additional 40 hours of training. Claimants' silence is a clear indication that the restructured and condensed program was sufficient.
The remaining issue before the Board is the Organization's position that Rule 54, Time Limit Rule, was violated by Carrier's failure to respond to its initial claim, and therefore. the claim should be sustained as presented.
Based on the discussions set forth herein, the Board is of the opinion that for all intents and purposes, Carrier complied with the requirement to sustain the claim as presented when it offered to afford an additional five days of training to the Claimants if they felt the need for it and made request for the additional training to their Supervisor. If the Organization or the Claimants believed they had been short-changed. they should have made request for the additional five days of training. They did not, and because they did not, there is no justification for the Board to sustain the claim.
This Award is based on the record submitted to the Board in this particular case, and shall not serve as a precedent in any other case.
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that an award favorable to the Claimant(s) 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.