_.·~_=n :;o. __32

C L -10

S_-= ~G__:^u C:-' ATJL;Si _"-i' ':0. i;~-S

: ,__i:S ) Eroti.eri:ood of Railway, Airline ~.nd IS tea;:o.io Clora;s,

Freight Fiandlcrs, Egress and Station :,:ploycc,
.and

n

:Ca nsas City Terminal Railway Company

QL :5:G_;S
6:T ISSU::: (1)Did the carrier violate the provisions of the

February 7, 1965 A11ree::wnt, particularly,

Articles II and III thereof, when effective

.,

·. Piarch 7, 196, it require.: certain iurlou-ced

Ushers (fed Caps) and Gate~:n, Passenger Depart-

rent, named hereinafter, to accept eri,'_oyrnat in the Mail and Baggage D_p<:rL:-.ar.t under directive if they did not do so they could lose

their status as protected employees?

(2) Did this situation involve the transfer of employees from one seniority district or roster to another?

(3) If the answer to question (2) above is in the affirmative did the carrier violate the sgreetx.nt when it failed to give proper and timely notice thereof and negotiate an imple-z.^.tir:o agreement?

(4) Shall the carrier compensate each and every employee involved for the wage loss they have suffered on and after Pfarch 1, 1965, and accord each and every such employee the full allowances and benefits prescribed in the February 7, 1965 Agreement?

OPINION
OF BOAP.D: Claimants are protected employees; as defined by Article
I, Section 1, of the February 7, 1965 National AZrae-.znt.
When furloughed, they held seniority only in the Passenger
Department and not in the .·iail and Baggag_ Depart:-.ant.
Nevertheless, on February 25, 1965, the Carrier notified
Claimants that in order to maintain their status of protected employees,
they would be required to perform work in the Mail and Baggage Department.
Consequently, the Organization filed the instant claim contending that
such transfer by the Carrier was a violation of Articles Ii and III. Spe
cifically, the Organization predicates its claim in the instant Wetter on
the failure of the Carrier to negotiate an impler,.enting a;rea:r_-nt. On
the other hand, the Carrier argues that an implementing agreer.ent was not
required inasmuch as the issue presented herein fails squarely within the
context of Article II, Section 3.

In our view, the Carrier's defense, premised or, the language

- 2 - _.arc :'o. _52_

' C,: s:: :so. C:.-iC-:7

of Article II, Section 3 is meritorious. The :crtinc:a portion of .,aid section provides:

. "Iihen a protected c::ployee is en titled to cer:_c~sa tio::

undar this a;;ree:::_nt, h:: may be used in accordance with

existing seniority rules for vacation -relief, holiday

vacancies, or-sick relief, or for any ot`.zr·nnor:.w

ass i~nm:-nts :which do not require tic crossing of croft

lines. :.."

(Underline added)

In the instant claim the facts indicate that these employees were assigned to fill jobs which were tcmpoiarily vacant, in the same craft and at the same location. Furthermore, an imple~nting- zSree:,_nt would be required when such technological, operational :.d organizational changes were designed to b2 mach on a permanent basis. Contrariwise the claimants here in were transferred on a to=.nporary basis.

It is also recognized ttaat the Carrier adhered to Article II,

', Section 3, in that existing seniority rules were not violated. This is

exemplified by the fact that at the time of transfer, there were no fur

loughed employees in the rail and Baggcaoe Department.

Hence, it is our considered judgment that the provisions of

' the National Agreement were not violated.

AWARD

The answer to questions 1, 3 and 4 is in the negative and question 2, as phrased, is moot and ambiguous.

_ _-_ -- __ _-. -_-___

_. __ _ : ^ ; __.__ . _~_ _._ _. - J ~~ -._ . _. ___

' Ta:rray rf. Ro:Wan

Neutral umber

Dated: Washington, D': C.

March 7, 1969