y' PARTIES ) New Orleans Union Passenger Terminal
CSI
TO THE ) and
DISPUTE ) Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen
QUESTION
AT ISSUE: Claim on behalf of Testman-Inspector
A. E. Barkdull for all time lost because
his position was abolished September 30,
1970.
OPINION
OF BOARD: In the submission and argument of this case three
lines of attack were developed by the organization.
One was that Carrier had presented different figures
on the decline in business to this Organization and to another.
When it was learned that the different figures were based upon
different formulae, the Organization claimed that Carrier did
not properly apply the Answer to Question No. 4 on Page 7 of
the Interpretations in making different agreements with different
organizations. Finally, it was said, Claimant should have been
recalled within 15 days when Carrier's business decline no longer
justified a force reduction, but this was not done.
Article I, Section 3, permits a reduction in force
proportionate to a decline in business exceeding 5%. According
to Carrier's records, measured in the way which the parties had
agreed upon, business had declined in excess of 55% in October,
1970, compared with the base period. Therefore, the February 7
Agreement permitted the layoff of one of the two Signalmen.
It appears that different figures were used under
an agreement with the Clerks, because a different factor was
measured. This difference is specifically contemplated by the
respective agreements. Each of the agreements was negotiated
pursuant to the Interpretations, which require the adoption by
organizations and terminal companies of relevant formulae to
calculate a decline in business.
It is undenied that the parties had entered into a
binding agreement describing how they would determinn, whether
a decline in business was sufficient to justify a reduction- in
AWARD NO.
zey-3
Case NO. SG-35-W
force. There is no contractual requirement for a single for
mula to be used by a terminal company and all organizations
signatory to the February 7 Agreement. It has been common for
more than one such agreement to be reached on a property, each
keyed to specific factors meaningful to the specific organization.
The formula in the Organization's agreement with
Carrier was properly applied in Claimant's case beginning in
October, 1970, except for the month of November. Retrospective
examination revealed a decline of less than 55°/ in November,
and the layoff of one of the two Signalmen therefore was improper
in that month. The answer to Question No. 2 on Page 7 of the
Interpretations states that if the "business decline did not
occur as anticipated, employees improperly deprived of work will
be made whole." Claimant consequently was entitled to be compensated for the month in which the decline was less than 55%.
He was compensated for November, 1970, and no further sums are
d7~_
ue im.
Since Carrier has complied with the February 7 Agreement, with the Interpretations, and with the local agreement
designed to measure the percentage of business decline, the
claim must be denied.
A WAR D
Claim denied.
Milton Friedman
Neutral Member
Dated: Washington, D. C.
January
a7,
1972
-2-