Aw,.rd
No.
180
Case `.;o. SG-16-z
_ SP-,CLAL BOARD OP ADhS'rHENT N0. 605
PARTIES ) Brotherhood of Railroad Signalman
TO ) and
DISPUTE ) The Dayton Union Railway Company
QUESTIONS
AT ISSUE: (a) Carrier violated and continues to violat:= t c·
February 7, 1965 Ag_eensnt, particularly Article I,
Section 5, when it fails to maintain a work force of
employes within the limits of attrition indicated in
the Agrc ·mwrt.
(B) Mr. Luther Ingram, or his successors, in the
Signal Department, be allowed pay at their individual
applicable rate of pay for each day entitled to compensation
commencing November 1, 1966, anal continuing as long as the
violation exists.
OPINION
OF BOARD: The Organization contends that Carrier violated Article I,
Section 5 of the February 7 Agreeswnt when it failed and
refused to maintain a work force within the limits of
attrition.
Article I, Section 5 provides:
"Subject to and without limiting the provisions of
this agreement with respect to furloughs of employees,
reductions in forces, employee absences from service
or with respect to cessation or suspension of
u..
employee's status as a protected employee, the carrier
agrees to maintain work forces of protected employ.=;,s
represented by each organization signatory aereto in
such manner that force reductions of protected e;:ployces
below the established base as defined herein shall not
exceed six per cent (6) per annum. The estabiisheci base
shall mean the total number of protected employees in
each craft represented by the organizations signatory
hereto who qualify as protected employees under Section. 1
of this Article I."
The Organization asserts that Carrier is obligated, under the
provisions of the Agreement, to maintain a work force of not less than. five (5)
positions.
I~;.._u No. 180
C--se :;o. SO-16-E
_ 2 _
On October 1, 1964 there were six (6) employees in
Carrier's Signal Department. Subsequent to October 1, 1964,
tu.:
lnSrahc.-;,
an unprotected Signal Helper, was furloughed leaving five (5) "rrotectca"
employes as of the effective date of the February 7 Agree"nC.
On Novecroer 1, 1966 i·'r. McCord, one of the five C5)
"protected" employcs, retired--resulting in a 20reduction of s ~'u~l forces.
The Organization asserts that Carrier should either rehire 1:r. 1,n,.,rL1,= or
hire a new employe in order to stay within the 6l per annum re_uc_ion of force
limits (by attrition or otherwise) imposed by Section 5 of ArtiCle 1.
Essential to the
Organization
s case is the pro~,cit--o:
that Carrier, under the provisions of Section 5 of
A=
ticle 1, is ::ec:cired to
maintain positions
and not a work force of protected employes. 1ze Board does
not agree.
Section 5
specifically requires Carrier to "maintain work: forces of
protected employees" and that "force reductions of protected employees below
the established base as defined herein shall not exceed six percent (6I) -car
annum".
The Board's position is supported by Award 10 which states:
"It is the intent of said Section 5 of Article 1 to maintain a work force of
protected employees and not positions."
AWPJZD
The claim is denied.
7 a _
Niehola 1'1.
N
was
Neutral Membe-,
61
Dated: Washington, D. C.
January 7, 1970