SP''CT:~L FO:~.:2D OF t~^:ii;S`~:::
'`1'
I.'O. 605
Pty ~RTIE$ ) Butte, AnaCO nda and Pacific Railway
CO:a?a-:!
O ;,n
r--_3
1 _.
) a nc
DSPU'i ) Brotherhood 01 i:aintenanC,^,-. Of wayC.1pJ.0ye
QUESTION (7:) Should -'tile Carr.er have restored Lo :r v
AT ISSUE: ice. on l~pri1 17, 196E all of tile :.~:i~lto::w nee
r
Of Way employes
x·7::0
were laid off 1.ia force
reduction on July 15, 1907 and
r
(B) Are the yGllc;aing r.~;;;ed a^pl.cyes e::i-~_cd
to compensation for eight (8) hours d<,-ily -or
each work 6av of th--it former wor:i
We^:S c;_S.".:·.~,'=
mel1ts for. which they have not received
OG:aG-..
sation since April 17, 1902:
R. 5-7. Ben ner A.
J.
Lm~noner. J. PG:.-ter, Jr.
G. J. Smet, Jr. R. P. Cortez J. P. ::GP;
G. ::. Fries P. T:. :=z.rringto : A. T7.
CE,r'-e
H. P. Lorello aD.
`1''.
Murray J. J. ~'-!'a nt
J. h:. Patrick J. J. Murphy t7. _. _--n :y
A. A. Hi11 J. J. Bradley L. A. Stone
H. Gonzales L. J. Coot C=nr 1st Va1cez
H. H. Forsyth J. U. white S:. C. Coo'.
S. Girardi D. F. S7eist P. J. Can=on
E. E. Gardener K. F. biitchhell A. D. 2ctersca
A. E. Davies R. L. Jones J. 19. Ha=rington
L. E. Ha~;:mond C. J. McCabe
OPINION
OF BOARD: Carrier transports raw materials and =inis::ed pro
ducts for The Anaconda Ce:apanv. ;;l:e:: the copper stri:te
-was set for July 14, 1907, Ca-=rier on July 10 posted a notice o=
general force reduction effective July 15 "due to t:_ca',_- ned strik e
a
-4o-
Ccm-anv." 7--,~n
ct-
I
by various unions zLgainsj The Z.na
the stxike 'cn,-',--6, Carrier posted the follcwing,
on IS,
1962: "\otice released by this office July 10, 1967 is cancallcd,
effective'' 12: Q1 A.M., Monday, April 22, 19oS."
~C-.~.
e::::1Gy::eS
were restored to service on various dates beginning zpril 17.
According to the Employes, Carrier ~~_sed the -ur
loug'as on Article I, section S, the emergency provision o~ t:.e
/ ~i
. T_~7:.RI)
r;
0 .
r
FCbruary'7, 1965, AgrCCii`,Cil'",
4:iliC:1
op oC1.-fically l yot::
.._~ _.';C C
a s as ~x:.i~.'.~1C of c.n ci-Cr gi~ncy, and
v:iLC'll
pi:OV~GC:.
thatc~·l :='::
" .,.
O~1Crat10i1S are restored
C1;:plOyCCS
CI'.titlCd t0
rJtC::W'Je~J.O: O'~
..~
Gi::J101;;1Gni, must b-~ reCalleil U0on the i:C'=r,lina~=7.o of t ",c
C::.__
ge ncy." zzo~r~ver, CarriG'_ contea;:s
taa-c
it aged u::·~:r ~._c_C1e
I, Section 3, v,,hi01a p_-ri:'iitss rcdl::coon in tile n
1:;:'~C- Oz =C'~
Cte::
Cmployoes b35od upon a aaclinc la busin2s
S;
its,
bus?.
n.`.:.^.:: net
only disapp-area in July, 1967, bill ).'G;:,ain~ On c. 1'r~c.tl'I
(:_.'ai:1
ished basis after the end of the
COpp
~ _4r- .~:. e
i l 1
'yJriL,
Elements
o~JV~
r
both Section 3 and S'eCt'n
t_. _
~ ~_o .... ~.:- ._
tc
have been invO:ccd by Carrier. For example, Section
3'C nC-_f·_CC
period was utilized, since notice was given in accorCanaC
the current schedule agre-,::nt and -is'- with Section 4-':: rcr-:__'_ziale
16- ::Ours; all employees were fur lough -_d, which is 'a'r.·::_:i;'_.:,_.C
only under Section 4, Plh'ilo Carrier contenCed that it w<'.z tha
decline in business, a Section 3 reason, %9hich caused
'i:__2
1 aV
Offs.
Howovcr, the February 7, 1565, Aorce-ment c~o.S .
not permit Carrier to invoke parts of each. Further, carrier
is required to comply with the requirements of t-,:e Section
under ~·fhich i t is acting. Although Carrier a=g'.~ed t=ouout
that it was proceeding under Section 3, its furiolag%: of all
employees C·Ias solely a Section 4- option. UnC;er Section 3 all
employees may not be laid off, since- that provision aatbyoriZCs
proportional reduction in forces to the extent of a decline i n
business exceeding
50,/..
In addition, Section 3 requires specific calculations vanich were. not made. Questions No. 2 a :d N-o. 3 on
page 7 of the interpretations of hovem'..Cr 24, 1907, Drovi(ae
that the information on which a reduction in force
.s
b~s~d
must be supplied to the Em:ployos promptly, as soon as it is
available. inat Carrier a year 'Later incluccd calculations =or
April and may, 1968, in its submission t0 this CC;',mitte~ (<:n d
then without showing any specific relationship bet·:reen the
decline in business and the number of employees furloughed),
was not compliance with the explicit requirements of Section 3.
Since both the original notice and t7n-- nature o=
the general force reduction from July 14, 1967 to kril 22, 1968,
demonstrate that Section. 4 was invoked, Carrier vas obli~ to
recall all protected employees "upon the termination o=
the
emer gency. ° Althoug'n Question No. 1 On page 6
O=
the interpretations indicates that Section 3 may he invo:%-ed even after
-2-
Case
.:G.
_...-:.~__
C.
Sect.101:
4:-
r~L'·.C~LGIl 1n for
CC,
to 60 this s-i.11 '=i:
y~:_f:.: ; C:G:.':
p11.11:CC
with SCCti0:1 3, c:;d not ..
_=G-
<-CsCT'i:ions.
`l.'.._Ti:
,;.'·:..:
.:G
such
CO:.?pll_."..1:CC
dart in g thc^. y:<;_:: 'following F.~:.^1.1, 1~'i::'.
'G
tCC'.`.C'.d
c.Il
hpva a luc.:C'ctI1tCC
G
co:;ip
°:1CF.t10:^. I';~'_-.C:: '_S
va~.vcd only unCer CCrtuin opecifiC
CC:~:d.i:~Ga.°,. Cv--r..~:'`S
failure t0 Obsc--_:rve thos.'a conditions oblicj_-s it to
CG.-:;11'j S;~'_?'.:
the contractual guarantee.
In its Submission Ce.Trier contcnu, t
.·
case six
Or u_
4,,.::i: Claimants
:~.:0
not prO'i.eC'i:Gd
a^,>~.G;,%C:;~.
_.
at this Late date Carrier givas n0
_ al
r
s..i :Or t a%
v-l 1GT
..
as s"crt.On. it liC-ver rai-sCCi the question.
On
tY.e
YJ-C"._=i.V,
although ouch Cl almant
l,as
n a^ed ill thc^c~ J.riitial ~l~:~..' G:'.
n
may 22, 1.966. `ihC Gl<Ce t0 raise-
e;1lG
rCsO1W= a -c:Ct'.i.=1
_ _
is on tae proper ty. Protected status is f_em~=ntly
E:
C:u_L.tion
of 7.ntcr-pretation a:i 47e11 c.:. a 11~1ttE'r of
uCCG'~Dt
~e] fcC~.
~.:...
this issue cannot thCTefore 'r..`.· resolved
mC'TC1v ;),,
'_CferT__:-:~'
tile matter bac:: to the pw:'C.ies 'ior mu'~Lial dC'.te'_:..^.:_::ut'-G'.^^:
G_
fact. Since there
:.S
n0 prCECsnt basis for C~oubtiar~-,
..._~
r,'.~1C'Je5`
assertion on t'ne proparty that all Claimants are protected
employees, each is held to be entitled to comren£atj.C n.
The evidence dcri~Onsttr< tes that the general recall
date was April 22, 19688, as shown in Carrier's notice, C.lt-:o?:.~=
some employees returned t0 Work on April 17. CGnsc.ue ntziy, i::e
claim is allowed from April 22 only. '
A VT P, R D
1. The answer to Question (A) is that Carrier
should have restorcd to service o n P.pril 22,
1908, all of the maintenance of Way e-i',ployes
who were laid off in force reduction on
July 15, 1967.
2. The answer to Question (D) is that the ..-.?ed
employes are entitled to ccmpansaticn fo_
eight. (8) hol=s daily for each wo'_ke:ay o=
. their former work wce assiun.,:ents for lai:ic h
they have not received compensation since
April 22, 1968.
i·altOn t 1W d:% an, iv2U-.~'a-a _.~:::Wr
s
?'Tas::ira~on, D. C.
Dated: October
r
, 1969
-3-