Cu `:~ . ._:_::%- 15-17

SP'ECLhL BOARD OT AD JUST~T'.rT No. 605

PART?"S ) Hotel and Restaurant Ei:.ployees and Bartenders
TO ) International Union
DISPUTE ) and
Union Pacific Railroad Company
QUESTIONS
AT ISSUE: (a) Whether an e~:tra p::otected =~lo-y c :T'.-.o =;t_ -not
available for work on one, tc,To or three occa~;_ca over
an extc.^.ded period of times h.-.s en^e~d in a cca-s:.·_.-.t
pattern of conduct of refusing, to accept cr.1ls to perfor
e xtYa work without prOp3r Cause WiLh1:1 tai: I~.'~ani.:~ O
Award No. 16, Case No. H&RE-1-E, SBa No. 605;
(b) Whether or not the Carrier should be requested to
restore protection to Ellsworth Jefferson, Jiry :
Johnson, Paul E11i~an, Francis 1isrray, ved C. Evans,
Joseph Pipkins, Alphonso Brown and Janvs 0. iinton anc
compensate these employees for all loss O_ co-p,ensatioa
as a result of the Carrier forfeiting their protcctioa.

OPINION
OF BOA'CD: Claimants were protected extra employer under the prO-,·isions
of the February 7 Agreer-ant. On one or :;are occasions each
of the Claimants failed to respond to calls. As a result
Carrier notified each of the C:aimants that as a result of his failure to be
available for service,he had lost his protective status under the Febr,:a_y 7
Agreement.

The Organization contends the.: Carrier's action was not justified because the facts in each C1aim~int's case s't:ow that there was no "consistent pattern of conduct of refusing to accept calls" as is required by Award No. 16.

Award No. 16 dealt with the questio=n of whether Ln extra protected employe lost his protected status for failing to -respond to a, call for extra work. There the Board found that:

where the faci:s of a particular cc:s_

establish4that an e:ctra protected emplcyec ",Ls engaged in a consistent pattern of conduct of refusing to ~accept calls to perform c:_t a work without proper cause, such employee: may lose his protected status under the :=diction ALxeement by re~.son of the application of Section 1 of Article II."

..... __ t. 1 iu . 1W

o ..-.-; _, 5_~,

`Thus, under the findings of Aorard \o. 15,
'lullawilabil'ity" in .and of itself: is lnsufficieni:. "'eCo':e -i:; in C-...~._ _:0

~nr loss of protective status, .gust sho,·: U "consist::r.t pact_._ o;" ccn__ct
warm,.,.
of refusing to accept calls " ^ ·· ^ c:it:-::.ut proper c--use".

An examination of ti:c L_ctsC .ad circa--_;t.- , ~ _=_o.: _

the unavailatrility of the Claimants fails to shcw Last the---- waS _ con S_szenc
pattern of conduct of refusing to accept eL11S to _=rfcrm e:=cr., wcr_. %7iah-~_
proper cause", and therefore, Claimants should be restored to c_~._: p.occctive
r
status. Accordingly, Clair=nts are entitled to loss of co..^.anat.tioii, i- ~.ny,
as a result of Carrier's action.

A'·LhRD

T'ne answer to '"'Lie first question at issue is in the negative; and the answer to the second question at issue is in the affirmative.

i ~

Nicholas 1i..Zlinas Neutral 2%n

Dated: LlashinZton, D. C.
January 7, 1969