SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUST:1ENT NO. 605
PARTIES ) Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railroad Companv
TO THE ) and
DISPUTE ) Transportation-Communication Employees Union
QUESTION
AT ISSUE: Is A. J. Cousins entitled to separation
allowance under the terms of the Agree
ment as a result of Carrier's action of
abolishing his position at Kenneth-Lismore,
Minnesota, and thereupon rearranging said
position to become a part of a position at
Lismore-Reading-Wilmont, Minnesota and also
a part of a position at Iiardwick-Luverne
Kenneth, Minnesota?
OPINION
OF BOARD: The issue arises under an implementing agreement dated
April 1, 1966, which provides in part:
(5) The senior regular assigned occupant
of the positions in the respective groups
above listed may retain the said position
or exercise seniority by using the procedure
contained in Rule 33 of the current Teleg
rapher's Agreement. In the event he does
not desire the consolidated position, then
it will be offered to the next senior regular
assigned occupant who may retain it or dis
place under the Agreement. In the event
neither of the senior employees, or employee
as the case may be, do not desire to retain
consolidated position, then the junior occu
pant of the positions consolidated will be
assigned thereto.
ASIARD NO.
2 1'
(8) Any protected employee transferring
to a new point of employment as a result
of the operational and organizational
changes made herein will be entitled to
the benefits provided for in Article V
of the Agreement made on February 7, 1965.
Carrier triplized a number of dualized positions.
Three dualized positions which were being combined into two
are involved in this case. They had been assigned as follows,
shown in the order of the incumbents' respective seniority:
Incumbent Position
Hansen Luverne-Hardwick
Claimant Kenneth-Lismore
McCann Reading-Wilmont
Each of Claimant's two stations was added to one of
the other groups, resulting in Kenneth-Luverne-Hardwick and
Lismore-Reading-Wilmont. Pursuant to Section (5) of the implementing agreement, the more senior employee as between Hansen
and Claimant was Hansen, and he elected not to occupy the triplized position in which his stations appear. Consequently,
Claimant was assigned to Kenneth-Luverne-Hardwick and the most
junior of the three, McCann, was assigned to the other triplized
position.
The Organization contends that since Claimant was
senior to Mr. McCann in a triplized position in which one of
Claimant's stations appeared, Claimant had the right under
Section 5 of the implementing agreement to retain it or to
decline it. He chose to decline it and therefore is entitled
to the separation allowance, similar to the treatment accorded
Mr. Hansen. Under the organization's approach, Mr. McCann would
-2-
AWARD NO.
-~?/ 3
Case No. TCU-84-W
have been assigned to one triplized position and none of the
three would have been available for the other. According to
Carrier, Claimant was required to fill the position declined
by Mr. Hansen, since there were three employees and two positions to be filled.
Either in viewing the two sets of triplized positions as a single group or in appraising each of them individually, Mr. Hansen had the right of first choice. Once he
declined his consolidated position, Claimant was the junior
occupant of it. Alternatively, since there were three employees
and two positions to fill, the two junior of the three are
assignable. The intent of the implementing agreement was that
there would be at least one employee assigned to each position,
whether by exercise of his seniority or by Carrier's assignment.
Thus if Claimant could opt to depart, then Mr. Hansen would
perforce be obliged to retain the position in which his stations
appeared. The seniority concept was related to a juniority concept ensuring an incumbent, and as between these two Mr. Hansen
had prior rights.
1,zhile Claimant was senior to one employee, he was
junior to the other. Thus he cannot exercise his seniority in
a situation where: his juniority gives Carrier the right to assign
him, for the last sentence of Section (5) indicates that Carrier
retained the right to require one of the occupants to fill each
position resulting from the triplization. In effect, Section (5)
permitted exercise of seniority only where a less senior man was
available, which means that Carrier had the right to assign two
men to the two positions.
A GP A R D
The answer to the Question is No.
Milton Friedman
Neutral Member
Dated:
Washington, D. C.
November 16, 1971 -3-