SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT N0. 605
PARTIES ) Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks,
TO ) Freight Handlers, Express & Station Employes
DISPUTE
) and
Portland Terminal Railroad Company
(Former Northern Pacific Terminal Company of Oregon)
QUESTION Did Mr. Brodell cease to be a protected employe under
AT ISSUE: Article I, Section 1, of the February 7, 1965 Mediation
Agreement when he declined to accept the call for the
temporary vacancy in the Mail and Baggage Department on
March 17, 1965?
OPINION
OF BOARD; The original joint submission of the parties contained
fifteen separate cases. Since then, Case No. 15 was
mutually withdrawn on the property, therefore, only
fourteen cases will be considered herein.
On October 1, 1964, Claimant Brodell was a protected em-
ployee assigned to the extra list. On March 17, 1965, he declined to accept
a-temporary vacancy in the Mail and Baggage Department. Predicated on these
brief facts, the Carrier argues that Claimant ceased to be a protected em
ployee, whereas the Organization contends that the employee retained his
protected status, but was not entitled to the benefits therefrom during the
period of absence.
In our view, a protected employee does not lose such status
for failure to take a temporary vacancy.
AWARD
The answer to the question is in the negative.
r. - i
~ '-
array M. Rohman
Neutral Member
Dated: Washington, D. C.
May 25, 1970
RECA/
f
L
,...79
y d
~RrA
Award No. 212
Case No. 'CL-8-W
(Case No. 2 of 14)
SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT N0. 605
PARTIES ) Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks,
TO ) Freight Handlers, Express & Station Employes
DISPUTE ) and
Portland Terminal Railroad Company
(Former Northern Pacific Terminal Company of Oregon)
QUESTIONS (1) Did Mr. Buzard cease to be a protected employe under
AT ISSUE: Article II, Section 1, of the February 7, 1965 Mediation
Agreement when he failed to obtain the rest day relief
position bulletined on April 1, 1965 in the exercise of
his seniority rights in accordance with the existing
Rules Agreement?
(2) Is an unassigned employe obligated to bid on all regular
and temporary positions available to him regardless of
seniority rank and without regard to his own personal
evaluation of his qualifications?
OPINION
OF BOARD: Claimant Buzard was a protected employee on October 1, 1964,
assigned to the extra list. On April 1, 1965, a temporary
rest day relief position was bulletined for which Claimant
failed to apply. Consequently, the Carrier contends he ceased
to be a protected employee pursuant to Article II, Section 1, of the February
7, 1965 National Agreement.
In this regard, Question and Answer No. 3, of the November 24,
1965 Interpretations, provides as follows:
"If an extra employee fails to obtain a position
other than a temporary position available to him in
the exercise of his seniority rights in accordance
with the existing rules or agreements, he will lose
a his protected status."
It is our view, therefore, that Claimant continued to be a
protected employee.
AWARD
The answer to Question No. 1 is in the negative. Question
No. 2 is ambiguous.
J ,
rray .·Rohman
Neutral Member low
Dated: Washington, D. C.
May 25, 1970
Award
No. 212
Case No. CL-8-W
(case No. 3 of 14)
SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT NO. 605
PARTIES ) Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks,
TO ) Freight Handlers, Express & Station Employes
DISPUTE ) and
Portland Terminal Railroad Company
(Former Northern Pacific Terminal Company of Oregon)
QUESTION Did Mr. Thompson cease to be a protected employe under
AT ISSUE: Article II, Section 1, of the February 7, 1965 Mediation
Agreement when he failed to obtain the rest day relief
position bulletined on April 1, 1965, in the exercise of
his seniority rights and in accordance with the existing
Rules Agreement?
Claimant Thompson was a protected employee on October 1,
1964, who held a regularly assigned position. Thereafter,
due to a reduction in force and lacking seniority to dis
place, worked off the extra list. On April 1, 1965, a
temporary rest day relief position was bulletined for which Claimant failed
to make application. Therefore, Carrier argues that Claimant ceased to be
a protected employee pursuant to Article II, Section 1, of the February 7,
1965 National Agreement. In view of our analysis in Case
No. 2,
we are,
similarly, disposing of the instant matter.
OPINION
OF BOARD:
Dated: Washington, D. C.
May 25, 1970
AWARD
The answer to the Question is in the negative.
0
M ray M. Rolfman
eutral Member
Award No.
212
Case No. CL-8-W
(Case No. 4 of 14)
SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT N0. 605
PARTIES ) Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks,
TO ) Freight Handlers, Express & Station Employes
DISPUTE ) and
Portland Terminal Railroad Company
(Former Northern Pacific Terminal Company of Oregon)
QUESTIONS (1) Did Mr. Fillman cease to be a protected employe under
AT ISSUE: Article II, Section 1, of the February 7, 1965 Mediation
Agreement when he failed to obtain the rest day relief
position bulletined on April 1, 1965, in the exercise of
his seniority rights in accordance with the existing
Rules Agreement?
(2) Is the extra board in the Mail and Baggage Department,
Stationmaster's Department, Ticket Office, and Store
Department, a position within the meaning and intent
of Article II, Section 1, of the February 7, 1965
Mediation Agreement?
OPINION
OF BOARD: Claimant Fillman was a protected employee on October 1, 1964,
assigned to
the extra list. On April 1, 1965, Claimant failed
to bid on a bulletined temporary rest day relief position.
In view of our previous analysis in Case No. 2, we are adhering
to our conclusion therein that Claimant did not cease to be a protected employee.
AWARD
The answer to Question No. 1 is in the negative and Question
No. 2 has previously been answered in the negative.
~I
Murray M. Rohman
V
Neutral Member
Dated: Washington, D. C.
May 25, 1970
Award No.
212
Case No. CL-8-W
(Case No. 5 of 14)
SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT N0. 605
PARTIES ) Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks
TO ) Freight Handlers, Express & Station Employes
DISPUTE ) and
Portland Terminal Railroad Company
(Former Northern Pacific Terminal Company of Oregon)
QUESTION Did Mr. Harr cease to be a protected employe under Article I,
AT ISSUE: Section 1, of the February 7, 1965 Mediation Agreement by
virtue of missing the call on April 16, 1965?
OPINION
OF BOARD: Claimant Harr was a protected employee on October 1, 1964,
assigned to the extra list. On April 16, 1965, he failed
to answer the telephone for a vacancy on that day.
In view of Award Nos. 4, 16, 126 and 185, in the absence of
a consistent pattern of refusal to answer calls, an employee does not lose
his protected status for failure to answer one telephone call.
AWARD
The answer to the Question is in the negative.
M ray M. Rohman
eutral Member
Dated: Washington, D. C
May 25, 1970
Award No.. 212
Case No. CL-8-W
(Case No. 6 of 14)
SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT NO. 605
PARTIES ) Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks,
TO ) Freight Handlers, Express & Station Employes
DISPUTE ) and
Portland Terminal Railroad Company
(Former Northern Pacific Terminal Company of Oregon)
QUESTION Did Mr. Mack cease to be a protected employe under Article II,
AT ISSUE: Section 1, of the February 7, 1965 Mediation Agreement when
he failed to respond to the call for the short vacancy
occurring in the Mail and Baggage Department on April 17,
1965?
OPINION
OF BOARD: Claimant Mack was a protected employee on October 1, 1964,
assigned to the extra list. On April 17, 1965, he failed
to answer a telephone call.
This matter is similar to Case No. 5, therefore, we adhere
to our previous conclusion.
AWARD
The answer to the Question is in the negative.
low
~t~tAla,
ray M. ohman
eutral Member
Dated: Washington, D. C.
May 25, 1970
rI
Award No. 212
Case No. CL-S-W
(Case No. 7 of 14)
SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT N0. 605
PARTIES ) Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks,
TO ) FreightHandlers, Express & Station Employes
DISPUTE ) and
Portland Terminal Railroad Company
(Former Northern Pacific Terminal Company of Oregon)
QUESTION Did Mr. Seeholzer cease to be a protected employe under
AT ISSUE: Article II, Section 1, of the February 7, 1965 Mediation
Agreement when he failed to respond to the call for the
short vacancy occurring in the Mail and Baggage Department
on March 6, 1965?
OPINION
OF BOARD: Claimant Seeholzer was a protected employee on October 1,
1964, assigned to the extra list. On March 6, 1965, Claimant
failed to answer a telephone call.
We are disposing of this matter in a similar manner to Case
Nos. 5 and 6.
AWARD
The answer to the Question is in the negative.
rray M. oh an
Neutral Member
Dated: Washington, D.C.
May 25, 1970
RE C
\
~ n .
vI
< v
15l)~
~`~e~RT A
Award No. 212
Case No. CL-8-14
(Case No. 8 of 14)
SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT N0. 605
PARTIES ) Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks,
TO ) Freight Handlers, Express & Station Employes
DISPUTE ) and
Portland Terminal Railroad Company
(Former Northern Pacific Terminal Company of Oregon)
QUESTION Did Mr. Tri cease to be a protected employe under Article I,
AT ISSUE: Section 1, of the February 7, 1965 Mediation Agreement when
he failed to exercise seniority over junior employes on
November 11, 1964? If Mr. Tri did not cease to be a protected
employe when he failed to exercise seniority over a junior
employe on November 11, 1964, did he cease to be a protected
employe in March and April, 1965 when he failed to accept
bulletined positions available to him in the exercise of
seniority?
OPINION
OF BOARD: Claimant Tri was a regularly assigned protected employee on
October 1, 1964, from which position he was subsequently dis
placed. On March 27, 1965, he failed to bid on a bulletined
permanent position of car checker.
In our view, predicated on the peculiar circumstances existing
herein and without precedent, pursuant to Article II, Section 1, of the
February 7, 1965 National Agreement, an employee ceases to be a protected em
ployee in case of his failure to obtain a position available to him in the
exercise of his seniority rights.
AWARD
The answer to the Question is that Claimant Tri ceased to be
a protected employee on March 27, 1965, under the peculiar circumstances
indicated herein and without establishing a precedent.
Murray M. Rohman
Neutral Member
Dated; Washington, D. C.
May 25, 1970
Award
No. 212
Case
No. CL-8-id
(Case No. 9 of 14)
SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT NO. 605
PARTIES ) Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks,
TO ) Freight Handlers, Express & Station Employes
DISPUTE ) and
Portland Terminal Railroad Company
(Former Northern Pacific Terminal Company of Oregon)
QUESTIONS (1) Did Mr. Ferrante cease to be a protected employe under
AT ISSUE: Article I, Section 1, of the February 7, 1965 ~2ediation
Agreement when he failed to obtain by displacement
regular Job 457 held by junior Clerk Martinotti, as
provided by Article II Section 1 of said Agreement?
(2) Assuming that, for any reason, regular Job 457 was not
available to Mr. Ferrante, should he be treated as
constructively occupying temporary Job No. 524 as
provided by Article IV, Section 4, of said Agreement?
(3) If the answer to Question No. 2 is in the affirmative
should Mr. Ferrante (or any other employe in like
circumstance) be treated as constructively occupying
such temporary position?
(a) For as long as his seniority would entitle him
to hold such position?
(b) For all time, beginning with the date he failed
to obtain such a position?
OPINION
OF BOARD: Claimant Ferrante was a protected employee on October 1,
1964. On March 3, 1965, he was displaced and failed to
exercise his seniority rights to obtain a regular position
available to him for which he was qualified and did not
require a change of residence.
It is, therefore, our considered opinion that under the
peculiar circumstances prevalent herein and without precedent, Claimant
ceased to be a protected employee on March 3, 1965, pursuant to Article
II, Section 1, of the February 7, 1965 National Agreement.
AWARD
The answer to Question No. 1 is in the affirmative, without
precedent. In view of our answers to previous questions concerning a
temporary vacancy, we decline to indulge in the theoretical assumptions
posed therein.
eutral-Membern
Dated: Washington, D. C.
May 25, 1970
Award No. 212
Case No. CL-8-W
(Case No. 10 of 14)
SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT N0. 605
PARTIES
TO
DISPUTE
Brotherhood of
Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks,
Freight Handlers, Express & Station Employes
and
Portland Terminal Railroad Company
(Former Northern Pacific Terminal Company of Oregon)
QUESTIONS (1) Did R. M. Ray, on and after October 9, 1964, cease to
AT ISSUE: be a protected employe under Article I, Section 1, of
the February 7, 1965 Mediation Agreement when he was
displaced as a direct result of the voluntary action
of Clerk V. McKechnie?
(2) If the answer to Question No. 1 is negative, did the
compensation thereafter preserved to Mr. Ray become
the rate of the position he acquired on July 2, 1965,
when he returned to service, assuming said position
had a lower rate than the position he lost on October 9,
1964?
OPINION
OF BOARD:
On October 1, 1964, Claimant Ray was a protected employee and
held a regularly assigned position. On October 9, 1964, McKechnie
returned from a sick leave absence resulting in a chain of dis
placements which included Claimant. Thereafter, Claimant became
ill and did not return until July 2, 1965, when he displaced a junior employee.
In none of these displacements was there involved a Carrier job abolishment or
rearrangement of forces.
Under the circumstances indicated herein, pursuant to Article
IV, Section 3, of the February 7, 1965 National Agreement, a protected employee
who is bumped as a result of a voluntary action will be compensated at the rate
of pay and conditions of the job he bids in. See Award Nos. 44 and 181.
AWARD
The answer to Question No. 1 is in the negative.
The answer to Question No. 2 is in the affirmativ (ZSee,~.~ `
our Award No. 68,
r ray . Rohman
Neutral Member
Dated: Washington, D. C.
May 25, 1970
Award No. 212
Case No. CL-8-W
(Case No. 11 of 14)
SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT N0. 605
PARTIES ) Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks,
TO ) Freight Handlers, Express & Station Employes
DISPUTE ) and
Portland Terminal Railroad Company
(Former Northern Pacific Terminal Company of Oregon)
QUESTION Has Mrs. Yetter, by reason of her failure to respond to
AT ISSUE: call on and after March 3, 1965, ceased to be a protected
employe under Article I, Section 1, of the February 7,
1965 Mediation Agreement?
OPINION
OF BOARD: Claimant Yetter was a protected employee on October 1, 1964,
assigned to the extra list. On March 3, 4, 5, 8, 10, 11, 15,
16, 17, 18, 22, and 23, 1965, Claimant failed to respond to
calls for service.
In our view, there is indicated herein a consistent pattern
of failure to respond to calls. See our Award No. 126. Consequently, Claimant
has forfeited her protected status.
AWARD
The answer to the Question is in the affirmative.
7
l-urr
'uV
M. Kokm
N al Member
Dated: Washington, D. C.
May 25, 1970
~O
X9
REC
20
. g~RTA
Award No. 212
Case No. CL-8-W
(Case No. 12 of 14)
SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT N0. 605
PARTIES ) Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks,
TO ) Freight Handlers, Express & Station Employes
DISPUTE ) and
Portland Terminal Railroad Company
(Former Northern Pacific Terminal Company of Oregon)
QUESTIONS (1) Is the compensation preserved to Mr. Burnett from
AT ISSUE: April 9-13, inclusive, the rate of his regular
assignment on October 1, 1964, (or that of subsequent
assignments voluntarily taken at a lower rate) or is
his preserved compensation to be calculated at both
the rate and the hours of his previous assignment?
See Case No. 9, Question No. 3.
(2) A protected employe whose rate of preserved compensation
is computed under Article IV, Section 1, is forced to
the extra list through no fault of his own, as was
Burnett for five days. He cannot hold an assignment,
either regular or temporary. Does his preserved rate,
under Article IV, Section 1, apply only to whatever
lower-rated work he may perform in his capacity as an
extra man, or is he guaranteed while on the extra list,
40 hours per calendar week at his preserved rate, less
appropriate deductions under Article IV, Section 5?
(3) Did Mr. Burnett cease to be a protected employe on
April 14, 1965, when he declined to accept a temporary
position offered him as described above, or should he
thereafter be treated as constructively occupying
Job 356? See Question No. 3, Case No. 9.
(4) Is the extra list in the Mail and Baggage Department a
"position" within the intent of the February 7, 1965
Agreement, as contended by the employes in this case?
See also Case No. 14.
OPINION
OF BOARD: Claimant Burnett was a protected employee who held a regularly
assigned position on October 1, 1964. On April 9, 1965,
Claimant was displaced by a senior employee due to a job abolish
ment. While performing work on the extra board, claimant declined
to bid on a temporary vacancy. Consequently, the Carrier contends the Claimant
forfeited his protected status due to his failure to bid on temporary job 356..
We adhere to our conclusion reached in Case No. 1, to the effect
that an extra employee does not lose his protected status upon failure to bid
on a temporary vacancy.
- 2 - Award No. 212
Case No. CL-8-W
(Case No. 12 of 14)
AWARD
The answer to Question No. 1 is that Claimant is guaranteed
his normal rate of compensation.
The answer to Question No. 2 is that he is entitled to such
guarantee for five days per week.
The answer to Question Nos. 3 and 4 is in the negative.
~'y/~
~'lexzOA-4r~
Dated: Washington, D. C.
May 25, 1970
..J E°
'1
SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT NO. 605
PARTIES ) Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks,
TO ) Freight Handlers, Express & Station Employes
DISPUTE ) and
Portland Terminal Railroad Company
(Former Northern Pacific Terminal Company of Oregon)
QUESTIONS (1) Did Browning cease to be a protected employe on and
AT ISSUE: after the date he was displaced by senior Clerk Arehart
in the chain of displacements described above?
(2) If the answer to Question No. 1 should be negative, did
Browning's rate then become the rate of Job 85 upon
which he exercised his seniority?
(3) If Browning's displacement was not the result of a
voluntary action, and his original rate is preserved,
does his preserved rate(but not his hours) apply to
any work performed? Please see Question No. 1,
Case No. 12.
(4) If it is held that both the previously original rate
and five day week are preserved to Browning, does the
original rate simply apply to all hours worked on his
new assignment, without regard to any difference in
rest days between the two assignments? That is, if
original Job A has rest days of Saturday and Sunday
and second Job B has rest days of Wednesday and Thursday,
should the preserved rate be applied to all hours worked
on Job B, without regard to the difference in the number
of work days in any month, or the work weeks of the two
jobs.
OPINION
OF BOARD: On October 1, 1964, Claimant Browning was a protected employee
and held a regularly assigned position. On November 4, 1964,
Job 362 was abolished, which necessitated the rearrangement
and rebulletining of Job 349. Upon rebulletining said Job 349,
Adams, a senior employee to incumbent McKittrick on Job 349, bid and was awarded
said job. Thereafter, McKittrick commenced a chain of displacements which
eventually involved Claimant Browning and forced him to displace a junior employee
on Job 85, a lower rated job.
It is the Carrier's position that the bid by Adams on the rebulletined Job 349, was voluntary. Therefore, when Browning was displaced
subsequently, he ceased to be a protected employee pursuant to Article IV,
Section 3, of the February 7, 1965 National Agreement. In the alternative,
upon Browning's bid into Job 85, his compensation was thereafter preserved
at the rate of the new job.
In our view, the initiating action was Carrier's abolishment of
Job 362, which caused Job 349 to be rearranged and rebulletined. Thus, the
chain reaction of the various displacements is directly attributable to the
Award No. 212
- 2 - Case No. CL-8-W
(Case No. 13 of 14)
Carrier's act. This-is another instance wherein all the consequences of a 1f
job abolishment are not readily apparent. Nevertheless, the Carrier having
precipitated the abolishment, cannot now contend that Claimant's eventual
displacement and bid into a lower rated job was caused by a voluntary action.
AWARD
The answer to Question Nos. 1 and 2 is in the negative.
The answer to Question Nos. 3 and 4 is the normal rate of
compensation based on a five day week.
Murray
e.
Rohean
Neu r 1 Member
Dated: Washington, D. C.
May 25, 1970
,.JEF
VOO
Award No. 212
Case No. CL-8-W
(Case No. 14 of 14)
SPECIAL BOARD ADJUSTMENT NO. 605
PARTIES ) Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks,
TO ) Freight Handlers, Express & Station Employes
DISPUTE ) and
Portland Terminal Railroad Company
(Former Northern Pacific Terminal Company of Oregon)
QUESTIONS (1) Did J. Tober cease to be a protected employe by
AT ISSUE: reason of her failure to qualify for and/or bid
on one or more of the assignments listed?
(2) If the answer to Question No. 1 is negative, should
J. Tober have one day deducted from her original
preserved compensation for each day a junior clerk
works a position on which she has made no attempt
to qualify?
(3) Is the extra list a "position" within the meaning
and intent of the February 7, 1965 Agreement?
(See Argument in Case No. 12, Burnett).
OPINION
OF BOARD: On October 1, 1964, Claimant Tober was a protected employee
assigned to the extra list. Subsequent to March 1, 1965,
numerous regular and/or temporary jobs were bulletined. How
' ever, Claimant failed to obtain a regular position other than
Information-Reservation Clerk established during peak periods of business in
the Ticket Office.
Rule 8(c) of the effective Agreement provides that the Carrier
will not be required to pay an employee during the qualifying period. As a
result, Claimant has never attempted to qualify for any other position.
In our view, Claimant is required to bid on a bulletined regular
position for which she is eligible (requisite seniority, fitness and ability).
Under the circumstances evidenced herein, as a protected employee her guaranteed
compensation would have substituted for the lack of pay during the qualifying
period. However, as Carrier has stipulated that Claimant is not presently
qualified, the opinion herein may not be applied retroactively, hence, she is
now required to attempt to qualify.
AWARD
The answer to Question Nos. 1, 2 and 3 is in the negative.
G C
~ 2dr~
Mur ay M. Roh n
N utral Member
Dated: Washington, D. C.
May 25, 1970