The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee Steven M. Bierig when award was rendered.
(Transportation, CommunicationsInteruational Union PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (
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.
The facts of the instant case do not appear to be in dispute. On October 20, 2004, the Manager of the Miami Crew Base, G. Mauck, published a bulletin abolishing four Crew Assignment/Statistical Clerk positions. The abolished positions had been scheduled to work four days per week, ten hours per day. The same bulletin posted four new Crew Assignment/Statistical Clerk positions scheduled to work five days per week, eight hours per day. Changes in coverage requirements precipitated said changes. The affected employees advised Mauck that a local agreement existed between the Organization and the Carrier establishing that the abolished shifts could be cancelled only after a conference between the parties, followed by 15 days' notice, and that such notice was not provided. Pursuant to that discussion, on December 27, 2004, TCU Vice General Chairman R. Kloos fled the instant claim.
The Organization contends that the Carrier violated the Agreement when it did not give proper notice to the Organization. The Organization requests that each of the four Claimants be compensated for 48 hours at the Crew Assignment Clerk rate of time and one-half. The compensation consists of eight hours at the overtime rate of pay for each week that each Claimant was required to work a five-day workweek until the Carrier served proper notice to the Organization of its intent to cancel the Agreement. In addition, the Organization requests that the Carrier reestablish the positions identified in the Memorandum of Understanding. Finally, the Organization requested Form 1 Award No. 39375
that the Carrier may not establish these jobs as new slash positions unless done so by Agreement.
Conversely, the Carrier acknowledges its failure to notify the Organization; however, the error was without malice. Immediately upon becoming aware of its error, the Carrier took steps to correct said error. In addition, the Carrier reminds the parties that the conference to notify the Organization took place on December 2,, well before the claim was filed on December 27, 2004. The Carrier contends that the remedy requested by the Organization is punitive and excessive and requests that the claim be denied. In addition, the Carrier contends that all Claimants have been fully compensated for services rendered during the period in question.
After a review of the evidence and the positions of the parties, the Board finds that the Organization has been able to meet its burden of proof regarding the question of the Carrier's failure to provide proper notice of the abolishment of the abovementioned positions. As a remedy, the Board determined that each of the four Claimants shall be compensated at the rate of 16 hours of straight time for the error. Therefore, the claim is sustained in accordance with the findings.
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.