AWARD NO.
-40Case No. TCU-41-E
G-
PARTIES ) Erie-Lackawanna Railroad Company
TO THE ) and
DISPUTE ) Transportation-Communication Employees Union
QUESTIONS
AT ISSUE: 1. Does Article IV, Section 1, apply with
respect to employees who are forced to
vacate their regularly assigned position
by reason of force reduction and thus forced
to displace on a lower rated position?
2. Does
Article IV, Section 1, contemplate that
Carrier shall promptly compensate employees
due preservation of compensation under its
terms and thereafter keep such preservation
of compensation on a current basis?
3. If the answer to either or both of the
above Questions at issue is in the affirmative, shall Carrier be required to compensate
Walter
Olevsky, James Vecchione and J. J.
Gildea all preservation (guarantee) of compensation due to each of them under the terms
of Article IV, Section 1?
OPINION
OF BOARD:
Each of the three Claimants in this case is a pro
tected employee who was displaced and exercised
seniority to obtain a position paying a lower rate
than that at Which he was protected.
According to the organization, no position was available to any of them paying a rate at or above his rate on October 1, 1964. According to Carrier's submission, each failed to
exercise seniority to a position which was available to him and
Which would produce the same or a higher rate.
The record does not support Carrier's position in two
of the cases, Gildea and Olevsky, since the discussions on the
property did not set forth any such information prior to the
filing of the case with this Committee. However, with respect
AWARD NO.
Case No. TCU-41-E
to Claimant Vecchione, Carrier did present information on the
property showing that on November 18, 1966, he could have
obtained a position paying a higher rate than that which he
occupied, but he failed to bid on it.
Carrier compensated Claimant Vecchione from the
time he was originally displaced and forced to take a lowerpaying position. However, on November 18, 1966, he could have
bid and obtained a position paying 80 per hour more than that
which he occupied. Since he failed to do so, Carrier was
justified in denying the claim.
AWARD
The Answer to Question Nos. 1 and 2 is Yes.
The Answer to Question No. 3 is that Carrier
is required to compensate Claimants Olevsky
and Gildea all preservation (guarantee) of
compensation due to each of them under the
terms of Article IV, section 1. The claim
of James Vecchione is denied.
Milton Friedman
Neutral Member
Dated: May %, 1972
Washington, D.C.
~cn