is 4..., ,.m. ,. ' ...a . ~:. -_ - u , \;' ;a:.l ny,.a°~ ff ~ v ,.7:: -_ ..
G. .~ ,:::y W C;,c - ;an ~o~x i. ;Ac:;~:,~ ·:: T^=~surc.·
 hr:::L~!,w 2uiiding o Suite C04 . _ , ._; , , .
 '··y i3 a, r!oor, !,-. Ouu6,n'
 ~~C; ;:._; S:-cet h:.'!. = Washington, D. C. 20C"71 2;;3 M~ry(ar:d Avc., N.2. Nl~c!~irg.on, D. C. 20002
 Coo 2u-2 R8 71541 Ccdcc 202 51'7-7510








                            Awards 181 through 185

                            (Dining Car Employes Cases)


      Dear Sirs and Brothers:


      I am enclosing herewith copies of Awards No. 181 through 185 signed by Referee Zumas on January 7, 1970. Because of the nature of the questions asked we cannot take exception to any of these Awards.


                                    Fraternally yours,


                                    Chairma /~J ~V 'n

                                    Five Cooperating Railway Labor

                                    Organizations


      cc: Mr. L. P. Schoene

      Mr. F. T. Lynch enclosures


      GEL:bk

                                                Z_ward ::o. 181

                                                Case _;o. ?Ii-:E-5-E


                    SPECIh.L LORD OF ADJL'STM3\T N0. 605


PP&iITLES ) Hotel and Restaurant Employces and Dartend-ars Intarnationa1 Union
 TO ) and
 DISPUTE ) Penn Central (former New York Cen'1ra1)
 QUESTIONS
 AT ISSUE: Emplovecs° Stntement of uestion at iosu;:
 Does Article IV, Section^. 1, apply to an e::lployca wao is
 forced to vacate his re.ularly assigned position by ruhson
 of- being displaced and thus forced to work from the e:_--ra
 list, it being the posi:ion of Enployees t=:at und-r t:iese
 circumstanccs, he is entitled to the preservation of com
 pensation provided for in Article IV, Section 1.
 Carrierss Statement of Question at Issue
 Is an employee who held a regular assim;a:ent on October 1,
 1964, but who shortly thereafter is displaced from his
 regular job to the extra board by the return from sick leave
 of a senior protected employee, entitled to prese=--vat ion of
 employrwnt and compensation computed in accordance with Article
 IV, Section 2.

 OPINION
 OF BOARD: As of October 1, 1964 Claimant held a regular position and consecuently
 was protected under the terms of the February 7 Agreement.

 Shortly after October 1, 1964 Claimant was displaced from his r ;;ci~r position by the return from sick leave of a senior protected employe. As a result Claimant was forced to the extra board, and worked from the extra list.

 The Organization contends a protected employe who is "bumped" by a senior protected employe, and as a result, is forced to the extra board is (1) not considered to have voluntarily exercised his seniority within the mwaning of Section 3, Axt_c!G 'IV, and (2) the provisions of Section 3, Article IV apply only "where there is a job in which the displaced employe can bid in."

 Carrier asserts that a protected employe who is displaced from his regular assignment to the extra board by reason of the voluntary exercise of seniority by a senior protected employe is entitled to preservation of employment and compensation, computed in accordance with Section 2, Article IV, and that the provisions of Section 1, Article IV do not apply to such an employe.

 J
    Carrier contends that despite the fact that Claimant held a reSular position as of October 1, 1964 it erroneously concluded "on the basis o_ incomplete- infor aation" that Claimant was entitled to protected status under Article IV, Scctioa 1. Subsequently Carrier concluded that Claimant was not entitled to havc his com?ensation as a "fully protected" employe preserved, but instead was protected "at the rate of pay and conditions of the job he bids in" pursuant to Article IV, Section 3.

                                                  zn~

                                          ._..nTd :.0. _b_


                                          Case -'.O. t:(::C_.-~-~.


                        .. 2 -


                    Section 1, Article IV reads as follc:7s:


              "Subject to the provisions of Section 3 of t.__.. Article IV, protected e.--~ploycLs erntitied to preservation of emp loy:,ent who hole: re ;u1=ly nssi,nad positions 0i_ CCLOber 1, 1C1J, Shell not be placed in a worse position faith respect to compensation thaa t'.ne norrn~.1 rate of ccn,;;:nc:aio_: for said regularly assigned position on Gcto~e=-11 1964; provided, however, that in addition. thereto such compensation shall be adjusted to include subsequent general wage increases."


                  Section 3, Article IV reads as fo11o;as:


              "Any protected employee who in the nor:=! e::ercise of his seniority bids in, a job or is bu:ped L=s result of sucb an emnloye_ exercising 'his sPn4-Q:.'-'-tY in the normal way by reason o:: a voluntary action, will not be entitled to have his co~;:nens~tion pr - served as provided in. Sections 1 and 2 ~eraof, -ut will be com=ensated at the rate of pay and conditions of the job he bids in; provided, bcwever, if f:_: _u required to ma',c_ a r-ove or bid in a position u: C-;~_ the ter:lls of an 1.GJler:.nting agrcem^.^.=nt P.zzde pursuant to Article III hereof, he will continue to be aid in accordance wit.: Sections 1 and 2 of t.is _-Lticie IV."


The underscored language is inart-ful and is confusi::g. While it is unclear whether "such an employee" refors to the buzping employee or to the bumped employee, we cannot agree with the G-rgaaization that it refers to the bumped employee. The only logical conclusion is that "such an employee" rr-~ans the bumping employee who is also a protected employee.

 The Board is in accord, however, with the second contention of the Organization, viz. that tine provisions of Section 3, Article IV are not applicable in that an employee does not "bid in" on e:ara board work. 'He is forced to the exi:ra board when there is no regular u..sign.ent available to him.

 This position is supported by Award No. 44 which considered the applicability of Section 3, Article IV in detail. There the Board said:
 T:o. l E1

              ". . .Section 3 of A-'ticle IV, in essence, provides


                                        _ _..

              that .. protected er,-%ioyee who is bum·;ed is the .-__.,. I

              e:cercise of seniority will not have his ec::?cns~i:ion

              preserved, but will be compcnsaccd at t:e :ate c= pay

              and conditions of the job ',i,- bids in.. ice: cG', l.=t the

              instant dispute, the Cla-lL-1cnt, having beca bu;:ae~. by

              a senior employee, was relagated to t::e co;~-~cnsat_on

              at the rate of the job he bids in. :a th--s juncture,

              the critical point in controversy hercin is e:cposed.

              What if the bumped emloyce has no ;ob available for

              him to bid in? To.-- Organization nrsues t11at in such

              an event, Section 3 of Article IV h:Is no application.

              Under these circu'Stcaccs, only Section 1 i5 ap?licable,

              which provides that he shall : of be placed :.n a Wc7_se

              position with respect to ccmpansation as o= Cctobcr 1,

              1964. In fact, the Grganiza_io:n -recognizes that .. the

              Claimant had been able to bid in on a lower -atedyposition,

              under the facts presented herein, he would 'l=ave -eccived

              only the compensation as provided on the 3o".) he bid

              in. However, in view of the fact that !:e Was unable to

              bid in on any job until December 15, 1:;65, to was entitled

              to the protective provisions of Section 1. i;..at is t:::=-

              significance of the rebrLa:-y 7, 1;'65 National A,:eerznt,

              as applied to the in::tant dispute? Wit:=out a job

              stabilization. agreement, an er.ployee cable is furlou',had

              does not have any guar::atee. Therefore, u... = .:ha yaid

              Agreerwnt, where a job is not available for him to bid in

              and he is furloughed, in our v-= w, it would app car that

              he is protected by Section 1 of f=rticIC- IV..."


              Accordingly, the Board finds that Section 1, Article IV is

applicable under the circumstances.
                          AUARD


The question presented by the OrSanizazion is ans%;erec in the affirmative, and the question presented by Carrier is answered in t:.e negative.

                              _i


                      / J Iv ~j `~_ ~~ i

                      iy ~-iii,. v(/./(. ZL

                            ,~...( , if\1ch01aS ::.~ Z.uG.as 1\eutzal Y-Jer


Dated: Wao::i ngton, D. C.
 -;7 , 1970