PARTIES ) Union Pacific Railroad Company
TO THE
) and
DISPUTE ) Transportation-Communication Division, BRAG
QUESTION
AT ISSUE:
On what position is an employee's guaranteed
rate based,
who,
on October 1, 1964 was on the
extra board, and;
1. Voluntarily bid on a position in February, 1965;
2. Voluntarily bid on a position in April, 1965;
3. Traded positions and seniority, by agreement,
with an employee on another seniority district
on May 2, 1965;
4. Voluntarily bid on a position on his
new
seniority district in February, 1966;
5. Was displaced on his latest position due to
a force reduction on July 2, 1968; and
6. Displaced on the position he acquired in
item (3).
OPINION
OF BOARD: The, essential issue is whether an employee, whose pro
tected rate is reduced because he voluntarily bid into
a lower-rated job, can subsequently increase that pro
tected rate by bidding into a higher-paying position. There is
no dispute that the voluntary exercise of seniority to obtain a
lower--paying job does result in a reduced guarantee under Article
:N, Section 3, of
the
February 7 Agreement.
According to Question and Answer No. 1 on page 14 of
the interpretations, an employee's compensation is the rate of
the job he voluntarily bids in "even though it may carry a lower
rate of pay than the job he is holding." According to the Answer,
that is the guaranteed rate "thereafter." Nothing is said in the
Interpretations concerning subsequent bids to higher-paying positions, or about an employee's return to his former position.
AWARD NO.
302
Case
NO.
TC-BRAC-108-W
Under Article IV, an employee's protected compensation
is based on his October 1, 1964, rate. It cannot be increased
above that, but it may be lost or reduced under various provisions of the Agreement. A guarantee which has been reduced may
be restored only by virtue of an implementing agreement, according
to Question No. 2 on page 14 of the Interpretations. No other
provision of the Agreement or of the Interpretations evidences
an intent to permit an upward fluctuating guarantee.
It is apparent that the February 7 Agreement was
designed both to protect employees' rates and also to discourage
voluntary movements to lower-paying positions. The protected
rate is to be permanent, unless by his own voluntary act an
employee reduces it. If he does so, the reduction is permanent,
since the key word in Question No. 1 is "thereafter," whether
the employee makes a single move to a lower-rated position or
does it more frequently, with each move effecting a lower
protected rate.
But no language in the Agreement is reasonably
susceptible of an interpretation that an employee can take
a lower-rated job and later restore his former guarantee by
bidding into a higher-rated position. If there had been any ·~/
intent to permit protected rates to see-saw, some such Indica
tion would surely have appeared in the Agreement. Where the
parties were interpreting the February 7 Agreement so speci
fically as to show how a lower guaranteed rate is produced,
they would have shown the reverse, if some subsequent action
by the employee made that possible.
Thus it must be held that the intent of this Agreement is to fix a permanently protected rate which can be reduced
once, or more than once, by an employee's action, but cannot be
moved upward thereafter.
Since Claimant had been on the extra board on October
1, 1964, he properly bid into a regular position on February 16,
1965. However, his move to a lower-rated position by his voluntary action on April 1, 1965 resulted in a lower protected rate
thereafter. He made no subsequent voluntary moves to lower-rated
positions, and the moves to higher-rated positions did not change
his guaraptee.
AWARD NO.
-3C;~-
Case No. TC-BRAC-108-W
A W A R D
Claimant's guaranteed rate is that
of the position into which he voluntarily bid in April, 1965.
~~z2~ Cz'L--`
Milton Friedman
Neutral Member
Dated: May / y, 1972
Washington, D. C.
-3-