SPP;CIP,h 1t~',t:1
017 PD.IU::'.~;r:\'i NO. 605
PARTIES ) Cilesa;)aal;c: & Ohio R..^-ilcray (Ch.'-- sapca.l:c
Di:ali.Ci:)
TO ) anri
DISPUTE ) Brotherhood of
Railroad
Si-,1,naln:_n
QVESTIOIs
AT ISSUE: t;'ert: tile ri;;ht"of A`i,^,iStal7r,: Signal. i _·.i.n:ain·).- L. ;:. I:~i7.y,
a protected
C::'1>lUy:_..
under
tie fGbTU·ai:y 7, 1965 C.~
_Ci:_:a.,
who held a I::gtaclriy ·._signed posi.tio n, vio7at;ccl mile:;
L::_
Carrier gave: unbullctined work to E. iI. l:d.;:~a, /. protec:::d
en:ployc:e junior in seniority to Y,=·lly, is c;·dci: to co:.;)ly
faith the requircnents of tcc
February
7, 1.65 P.~ceam.~n-~?
OPINION
OF BOARD: This dispute involves two elaployes who here prutccti~d
u:12cr
the Jebru ary 7 Ag-recl..:nt. In o-rd.r_r to cam; l·; v:iah 4':e P_o
V1SlOi7::
Of 711::
February
7
:~_rC:Cl~.all:,
Car,!:
:i_i:
~s:J:.'.
n'::JU7.lf-_j:ia%li
"IllalC,^'
work" t0 the junior
CL1J10y.~.
au V"-2adoa Cr_-:;_ 1 eSt
`I'1::~-l::ia.
The senior ei.lplOyi: was assigned t0 work at
flilICC,
fICSt G'-ir-;i:·:
i1 F:
C: 11J:;:i
at I-:=allow Creek. lie contended that the "make work" should have been bulletined
in order to give hire an opportunity to bid it and work at hoe ratil_-r than
travel.
A claim on his behalf has been filed with the laud Division
alleging that Carrier violated tile Si.gnalnl.=n's ASreem2:it and asking for
travel expenses for Claimant until such tir.la as the work given to the junior
employe is bulletined.
Unlike the
question of
a determining preferential rights as
bett:ecn protected and unprotected employes, the question involved in this
dispute is one of seniority. It does not involve an application of the
February 7 Agreement or its Interpretations. It does involve an application
of the seniority, bulletining and assignment provisions of the basic ag-rec%nt between the parties; and as such, the question is properly before the
T'nird Division. .
AWARD
The provisions of the February 7 Agreement are not applicable
under the circumstances.
Nic
~~,
Y&e,
Dated: ;laeltington, D. C'.
June 24, 1969