SPECIAL BOARD 3hADJUSTW NT N0, 605
PARTIES ) Louisville & Nashville Railroad
TO ) and
DISPUTE ) Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen
QUESTION
AT ISSUE: Was the action of the Carrier in using furloughed protected
employee C. F. Ray on position of Assistant Signalmen -
Maintainer during the period it was advertised, March 1-9,
1965, in preference to using senior furloughed unprotected
employee R. L. Collins, in accordance with Article I, Sec
tion 1, Article II, Section 3, and Interpretations thereof?
OPINION
OF BOARD: Under the particular facts and circumstances of this case it
is clear that Carrier was required to return C. F. Fay to active.
service on March 1, 1965, inasmuch as he was a "protected"
employee under the provisions of Article I, Section 1, of the
Agreement of February 7, 1965.
The work performed by Ray from March 1, 1965 to March 9, 1965,
was on position of Assistant Signalmen-Maintainer, during the period it was
advertised by a bulletin dated February 26, 1965, until it was bid in effective March 10, 1965, by R. L. Collins, an employee on furlough who was not
a "protected" employee under the provisions of the February 7, 1965 Agreement. As Collins was not "protected" under the provisions of the February
7, 1965 Agreement, any rights he had to be used depended upon his seniority
rights under the basic schedule agreement. In the Interpretation of November 24, 1965, Question and Answer No. 7 to Article I, Section 1, is as
follows:
"
Question No-7: What rights to employment or guarantee of
compensation does an unprotected employe have?
"
Answer to question No. 7: Except as provided in Article 3
Section
5,
such an employe retains his seniority rights and is
entitled to such employment as he can obtain pursuant to such rights.
The only compensation guarantee he has is the agreed-upon rate for
the work he performs in pursuance of his exercise of seniority."
Under the circumstances of this case the question of Collins'
seniority right to work, during the period the assignment in question was
under bulletin, is not governed by the provisions of the February 7, 1965
Agreement, but involves interpretation of provisions of the basic schedule
agreement which are not before us. We find that under the facts before us
the action of the Carrier in using the protected employe on a position
during the period it was under bulletin was in accordance with Article
I,
Section 1, Article II, Section 3, and Interpretations thereof.
~.1
z~
l.vr:.rd
ao. _S0
Case :,c. SO-1-S,7
Award
The answer to the question is yes, in so far as the application of
Article I, Section 1, Article II, Section 3 and Interpretation thereof
to Fay is concerned.
The question as to Collins' right under the scheduled aoreec;ent is
not before us.
CAFhIF,F MGMERS
crr ~
6 7
Washington, D. C. - April 22, 1969
EMPLOYEE r'.ChrS^FS