SPECIAL
BOARD of Ai3,IUSTt4Nr No.
605
PARTIES ) Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship
TO ) Clerks Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employee
DISPUTE ) and
The Baltimore and Ohio
Railroad Company
QUESTIONS' (1) Did the Carrier violate the provisions of the Agreement
AT ISSUES of February
7, 1965
and the interpretations thereto parti
cularly Article III Section 1. when it removed the protected
status from Mr. A. Princes a clerical employee at Philadel
phia, Pennsylvania?
(2) Shall the Carrier be required to reinstate the protected
status to Er. Prince sad pay him all compensation dues begin
ning with May
1965
and continuing until the Carrier complies
with the provisions of the Agreement of February
7# 19657
OPINION The essential facts are not in dispute. A. Prince was a pro
OF BOARD: tectec'.furloughed emplcye on October 1s
19611.
On May 7s
1965 the Carrier advertised three "Storehelper" positions
at Brunswick, Maryland which was in the Claimant's seniority district.
Claimant did not apply for any of the positions. They were awarded to em
ployee having less seniority than Prince. Thereafter Carrier removed
Prince from the status of a protected employs contending that he failed
to "obtain a position available to him in the exercise of his seniority
rights" as provided for in Section 1 of Article II of the February
Ts 1965
Mediation Agreement.
The pertinent part of said Section 1 of Article II says that
"An employee shall cease to be a protected employee in case of his ...
failure to . . . obtain a position available to him in the exercise of his
seniority ri s accordance w
iexi rules or agreements . . .
as s a ded . The language "existing rules or agreements refers to
the basic collective bargaining agreement to which this Carrier and this
Organization are parties particularly those rules dealing with seniority
rights. Rule 31 (d) of the latter agreement provides, in part, as follows:
"Assignment by Appointments
(d) When no a lications
are -received from em
ployees in seance t a ic~ en itneas a a b:y senior
oft ose furlo hod . . . new positions or vacancies expected
£o b nine y ) calendar days or more duration will be
filled as follows:
1. The senior qualified applicant in service., if any, will be
conditionally assigned subject to possible subsequent displacement as hereinafter provided.
lxard Not ~
Case No. -E
- 2 -
2, The senior ualifisd evployee not holding an assignment
under a rseunen a --an w
i'To~e
not
on
leave or ` a senoe as of
e date o advertising bulletin, incapacitated, or in
service referred to in Rule 41., will be alai ed and so noti
fied in writing b mail. or telegram aen to a address o
reco~
co
of the n ice otbe u~r a ie t he ivision CF~air
man
. . . Finp
a e a e
Prince was on furlough; no applications were received from employees "with sufficient fitness and ability senior to" Prince; there is no
claim that Prince lacked the "fitness and ability" required for the positions advertised; Prince was not assigned and was not "notified in writing
by mail or telegrams" as required in Rule 31(d). Carrier is obligated to
comply with the provisions of that tale. The alleged "failure" of Prince
to obtain the position was due not to negligence on his part but to the
failure of the Carrier to comply with the notice requirmnacta of Rule 31(d).
Carrier concedes that Prince "did not hold a regular position"
on October 1,
1964,
"but was in 'active service' under Article Is Section lp
of the February
7o 1965
Agreement by reason of the fact that he was s furloughed employee who responded to extra work at Philadelphia."
The interpretations of November 24s
196$
are not inconsistent -xith the conclusion that Carrier failed to abide by the provisions of
Rule 31(d) of the basic agreement. The answer to question 3 under Section 1 ~
of Article II of the February 7, 1965 Mediation Agreement refers to the obligation of aaxtra employe3se to obtain or retain positions. We have already
pointed out that Prince was not an extra but a furloughed employee who
responded to extra work# The answer to question 4 under the seals Section
and acme Article states that a furloughed protected employee is required
eto respond to a call for extra work in order to preserve the protected
status." Prince did respond to extra work when called.
Ws conclude that the Carrier violated the February 7.
1965
Mediation Agreement.
IYTARD
The answer to question (1) is in the affirmative.
The answer to question (2) is also in the affirmative,
REFEREES:
t
, r !s~ ~, l;
.\. ~_
`rrl
t/. _.... ,~ .~'~
i ~ . ' m
Washington, b. C. - December 19, 1967