This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.
Upon review of the parties' Submissions, the pertinent issues for the Board's consideration are: (1) whether the claim was handled timely as prescribed by Rule 21; (2) whether the Claimant was displaced or furloughed at the time the Claimant bid to District T-2; and (3) whether the Organization met its burden of proof in showing the Carrier violated any f `&NW RniPC whlsn it rt-.mnvwl the f iaimant'c CR.NW 'F-1 seniority and LPL' System Gang seniority. -___ __ _ _____ . __ ____ ___________ .. _~_ . .. _ .
Luc iluvculucl 1, .UU1 l-lllualgU OL iNnrL11 VVCSLerll ll-cXfV VV) transportation Company/Union Pacific Railroad Company Collective Bargaining Agreement ("the Agreement") requires that a claim be brought within 60 days from the date of the occurrence on which the claim or grievance is based. The Claimant was unaware that his seniority on District T-4 had been removed until he received notice on or about August 27, 2003. The Claimant grieved by letter on September 29, 2003. The Carrier's position that the Claimant should know what the Agreement says is disingenuous considering the Agreement is silent regarding the removal of ceninritv when an employee bids from one district to another. Previous Awards recognize the propriety of evaluating compliance with the timely filing of claims based upon when a claimant knew or should have known a claim arose. It is undisputed that the
The Claimant had established and held seniority as a Trackman in the Track Subdepartment on Seniority Districts T-4 and T-2 and as a System Gang Laborer since June 11, 1997. On June 19, 2003, the Carrier abolished the Claimant's T-4 position. Pursuant to Rule 13, the Claimant had 15 calendar days from the date his position was abolished to either displace a junior employee or be furloughed. According to the Carrier, the Claimant did neither by choosing to bid completely out of District T-4 and bidding to District T-2 on June 20, 2003, one day into his 15-day displacement period. The Claimant worked his position on T-2 until being displaced T___1 ~__ _____
on July 7, 2003. Because he could hold no other position on T-2 at that time, he reverted to furlough status on T-2. Subsequently, the Claimant received a recall notice pursuant to Rule 14A to a position on T-2 as a Trackman on Gang 2970 at Des Moines. Towa. HeeauCP tile Ciaim9nt thnnaht ho wnc ftn·lnnahnri nn T-d ha nlantnrl nn4 to accept the recall on T-2, knowing he would lose his T-2 seniority. He waited from July 7 until August 27, 2003 to be recalled on T-4 when he received a letter from the Carrier informing him that he was terminated because he had failed to respond to a recall m 1 mt__·_ .
employee vrlall Ul·7V1al,trMGnL riglus, yet nul yet lul-luufllCU, won voluntarily DIGS, displaces and establishes seniority in a new district, forfeits seniority in the former district. The Carrier also asserts that its interpretation has been accepted without objection for years by the Organization. The Claimant claims to have had no such knowledge of this practice. The Organization disputes this assertion claiming that the Claimant did not lose his seniority on T-4 when he bid to T-2 because he had not been recalled. However, the Organization's position begs the question: How is the Claimant to be recalled if he is not vet furloughed? To further confuse matters, in support of its position, the Carrier relies on Rule 14 of the Agreement. The Carrier's argument is troublesome because, by its own language, Rule 14 applies to furloughed employees. Yet, the Carrier vigorously argued that the Claimant was
any provision of the Agreement. The Claimant was not furloughed at the time he bid to T-2. Therefore, the Carrier's practice of removing seniority in one district
when an employee bids and establishes seniority in another district, absent any prohibition under the Agreement, must stand subject to negotiation by the parties at the appropriate time.