Form 1
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
Award No. 34020
Docket No. MW-31597
00-3-93-3-603
The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee
Martin F. Scheinman when award was rendered.
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
(Elgin, Joliet and Eastern Railway Company
"Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:
(1) The Carrier violated the Agreement when it failed to allow its
Maintenance of Way forces to perform work on June 25, 1992
because of a lockout by the major rail freight carriers on June 24,
1992 and failed to comply with the provisions of Rule 41(b) (System
File SAC-9-92/UM-10-92).
(2) As a consequence of the violation referred to in Part (1) above, all
Maintenance of Way employes who were denied the right to perform
service on June 25, 1992, by the Carrier's actions, shall each be allowed
one (1) day's pay at their respective straight rates."
FINDINGS:
The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the
evidence, finds that:
herein.
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
Parties to said dispute were given due notice of hearing thereon.
Form I
Page 2
Award No. 34020
Docket No. MW-31597
00-3-93-3-603
This case involves a claim by the Organization that the Carrier violated Rule 41
of the Agreement when it failed and refused to issue notice of a reduction in force five
working days prior to the June 25, 1992 implementing of the force reduction. The facts
are not in dispute. By notice dated June 24, 1992, the Carrier partially suspended its
operations after it determined that there was an immediate adverse impact on the
Carrier's operations from the closing of major interchanges as a result of a national
labor dispute between the International Association of Machinists ("IAM") and major
carriers with which the Carrier interchanges freight cars. On June 26, 1992, Congress
passed a bill to abolish the strike and full service was restored.
The Carrier asserts that Rule 37(a) supports its actions. Rule 37(a) states:
"Rule 37 EMERGENCY FORCE REDUCTION RULE
(a) Rules, agreements or practices, however established, that require advance
notice before positions are temporarily abolished or forces are temporarily
reduced are hereby modified so as not to require advance notice where a
suspension of an individual carrier's operations in whole or in part is due
to a labor dispute between such carrier and any of its employees."
According to the Carrier, its operations were partially suspended due to a labor
dispute between itself and its employees represented by the IAM.
The Organization, on the other hand, asserts that the Carrier was not a party to
the national rail dispute and, in fact, was not even engaged in national bargaining with
the IAM. Thus, the Organization maintains that the Carrier did not have a dispute with
any employees represented by the IAM, and had not even reached the point of self-help.
Accordingly, the Organization argues, the suspension of the Carrier's operations was
not due to a labor dispute between the Carrier and any of its employees, and a full five
days advance notice of the force reduction was required.
After reviewing the record evidence, we have determined that the Organization's
claim should be denied. Our review of the record demonstrates that this case involves
the same issues and same Rule presented in Third Division Award 31683. In Award
31683, the Board rejected the Organization's argument that no dispute existed between
the Carrier and any of its employees. The same decision under identical facts was
reached by Second Division Awards 12787, 12788, and by Public Law Board No. 5426,
Form 1
Page 3
Award No. 34020
Docket No. MW-31597
00-3-93-3-603
Award 4. Thus, this is the fifth dispute that has reached arbitration over the Carrier's
June 25, 1992 force reduction. We find no basis in the record to deviate from the
Board's prior Awards.
Accordingly, the claim must be denied.
AWARD
Claim denied.
ORDER
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that
an Award favorable to the Claimant(s) not be made.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 19th day of April, 2000.