SPECVL BOARD
OT,' ~'~BJU,",T:tsrdT N0. 605
PA_RTZES ) Hotel rind Restaurant Employees and Bzrtendars
TO ) International Union
DISPUTE. ) and
Union Pacific Railroad Company
QUESTION
AT ISSUE: The question. at issue is whether an ertra em?lo·:3e,
protected under Article 1, Section I of the -=ebru~cy
7, 1965 Agreer::ent, can lose his protection becLusc
of absence from Carrier's service in that he wLs not /
available for an e=ttra assigncent, or extra a~.,
1/ Employees, however, wish to in~or^ this Con=.it:e·e
that for purposes of this dispute and ~c= se_e o~ arLu-_nz
we assur:a the emnloyces here invol",-ed were not
for service and thus absent f-nom service as Carrie_ ccctends.
We do this in order to secure an intcrnretatior. of t:!--
stated issue and we do not by =his submissio_ =.aive our -_J,,:_t
to present to the Committee, should this becor:_e necessary,t:a
primary question of whether or not the affected e-ployeas were
not in fact available.
OPINION
Or BOARD: Of the original four Claimants in this dispute, Clai^c.-,t
Hopkins was not protected and Claimant San;?son __ s'=mired.
The parties have therefore agreed to considsr only Claimants
Elligan and Rinton.
The question as stated is whether a protected eml:,l_oya can lose
his protected status by failing to respond to a call :.or an extra assi.,nment.
The Organization concedes for the purposes of resolving this
dispute that Claimants "here involved were not available for service and thus
absent from service as Carrier contends".
Section 1 of Article II of the February 7 Agree:r._nt provides
in part:
"A protected furloughed employee who fails to responc
to extra work omen called shall cease to be a protected
employee."
.._.naTi_
u:0.
LJ=
Ctsa 1';c. ___._.,-L-n
- -
Question and Answer No. 4 of the .vo·.·e::;~er L4; 196,
Interpretations read as follows:
"Qiic.^,ti_on No.
4:
Does t:,~ phrase "fa-'1s to
to extra work when cn11ed" apply to isolatcd
J
instances of not receiving, a call or being unav:_i:
able to respond?
"Answer to Question, No. G.: Tae provisions
oa
Ar~icle
II, Section 1, of the AZrceT:nt do require a -=urlou,,had
employe protected under. Article I, Section 1, to res::;;nd
to a call for extra won?: in order to preserve tl_e prc~=ected
status. Isolated instances such as referred to in to
Question should be handled on an equitable basis in she
light of the circumstances involved. Seasonal employes
must respond when offered employment as provided r..
Article I, Section 2."
ANTARD
The answer to the precise question submitted for determination
is answered in the affirmative.
;'.( ,r i~.
~~' ·'~' i
\icilo sI
ci.
Zumas
leutrairlw~.,ber
Dated:
Washington, D
. C.
January 7, 1970