SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT NO. 605
PARTIES ) Lehigh Valley Railroad Company
TO THE ) and
DISPUTE ) Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen
STATEMENT
OF CLAIM: Claims of the General Committee of the Brother
hood of Railroad Signalmen on the Lehigh Valley
Railroad Company:
Claim No. 1
On behalf of the following signal employes
for pay due to violations of the February 7,
1965 Agreement ---
D. E. Allardyce ) Auto expense and room-and
board from November 29 thru
December 31, 1971, and con
' ) tinuing until such time as
restored to their original
F. X. Jewell ) positions.
E. J. Fazekas ) Pay for various dates, Novem
ber 29 to December 15, 1971.
T. Vathis ) Pay for various dates, Novem
H. McPherson ) ber 29, 1971, and continuing
C. Fye ) until such time as they are
restored to service.
/This
claim was discussed in conference June 12, 1972,
and denied in a letter under the same date)
Claim No. 2
On behalf of J. F. Keim for eighteen (18)
days' pay beginning January 26, 1972, due to
being displaced by senior employe and being
'`_ 2D NO. JJ ~~
case No. SG-34-'-
unable to hold another position; this claim
based on violation of February 7, 1965 Agreement. LThis claim was discussed in conference July 20, 1972, and denied in a letter
dated July 25, 1972)
Claim No. 3
On behalf of E. Fazekas for twenty-seven
(27) days' pay at the Signal Maintainer rate,
between February 24 and April 3, 1972.
This claim was discussed in conference October 9, 1972, and denied in a letter dated
November 14, 1972)
OPINION
OF BOA:ZD: Essentially these claims have the same bases and
handling as those in Award No.363(Case No. SG
33-E). In general the holding is the same, although there
are some differences in the Claimants and in the periods
involved.
Abolition of position is not mentioned in Section
3, which deals with reduction in force. Although Carrier at
various times on the property used both concepts, the organization contended that the first notice, which referred to job
abolition, was improper.
However, it was clear that Carrier was reducing
forces. The Organization itself, during the handling on the
property, as in the Local chairman's letter of January 18, 1972,
referred to "present reduction of our forces." And the General
Chairman's letter quoted the Carrier as saying that "said force
reduction was made."
Plhile it is held that Carrier's notice was sufficiently
explanatory, the use of the term "job abolishment" gave Carrier
no right to reduce the wages of a protected employee who continued to work by displacing a lower-paid employee. There is
no reference to job abolishments in Section 3 and no indication
-2-
AWARD NO.
30
that this provision was designed to do more than govern an
actual reduction in force.
In connection with four of the claims, less than
five %vorking-days' notice preceded the layoffs, according to
the dates of the notice and the effective dates of layoff.
Unless the requirements for job abolishment due to an emergency were met--and they were not--an anticipated decline in
business permits layoffs after notice of five working-days.
Employees who were not given it are entitled to compensation,
even if the layoffs themselves are proper.
Claimant Allardyce seeks automobile and living
expenses. The Committee is without jurisdiction to grant
such non-wage benefits and the claim must be dismissed.
Claimant Jewell was advised on November 17, 1971,
that "due to anticipated decline in business" his position
was abolished as of the close of business on November 26,
1971. He seeks the difference in compensation from November
29 until restored to his regular position, as well as auto
expenses incurred in travelling to work.
Section 3 does not permit Carrier to reduce the
iaLe o:: LcuLected cL:,ae.iL~uLion ox an employee who displaces
another, and this claim must be sustained. Claim for auto
expenses, however, must be dismissed.
Claimants Fazekas and Vathis were laid off on
November 27, after Carrier had given notice on November 24 that
their positions were abolished "due to anticipated decline in
business." Figures on the decline in business were subsequently
supplied by Carrier in support of its action. Neither their
adequacy nor their accuracy was challenged on the property,
even though they did not, in fact, accord with the data anticipated by the Interpretations.
On the property the Organization had originally
asserted that Section 3 "does not provide for anticipated loss
of business." This view was subsequently modified. However,
since the organization accepted figures supplied by carrier
without protest, it must be assumed that they reflected a
decline in business sufficient to warrant the layoff of claimants. Otherwise they should have been challenged on the property and the matter resolved there. Consequently, the claims
must be denied, except for pay in lieu of appropriate notice.
-3-
AP7ARD NO.
3 69
Claimants mcpherson and Fye received similar notification on November 24, 1971, effective November 27, 1971. The
facts are similar to those in the cases of Fazekas and Vathis.
Claimant Keim was displaced from his Signal Helper
position at Lehighton, Pennsylvania, on January 26, 1972. On
February 1, Carrier advised him that, due to anticipated
decline in business, his "status as protected employee has
been suspended effective January 26, 1972." Consequently,
although he was a protected employee, Claimant was not working
or paid from January 26 for a total of 18 days.
Obviously an employee cannot be given retroactive
notice of a force reduction. Therefore, Claimant is entitled
to compensation as a protected employee from the date he was
deprived of pay until the effective date after appropriate
notice of his layoff was given.
Notice of a reduction in force under Article I,
Section 3, must be "advance notice," and five working days'
advance notice is required under the rules agreement. This
claim specifies each day when Claimant was deprived of work
and of pay. Since Carrier's supporting data submitted on the
V/
property were not thereafter challenged as insufficient, com
pensation is due only for the days preceding the notice and
for five working days thereafter, or from January 26 through
February 8, 1972.
Claimant Fazekas was recalled on December 15, 1971,
following his earlier layoff on November 29, and he worked until
February 23. He was then laid off again, and this produced the
present claim. As in the other cases, the claim is predicated
on the failure of carrier to establish cause for layoff under
Article I, Section 3, but in view of Carrier's unchallenged
data supplied to the Organization, it must be held that justification for the reduction in Zorce existed. Consequently,
the claim must be denied.
The record is barren of any information about a
notice period at the time of this layoff, and no Award is made
on that subject.
AWARD NO.
J
b9
Case No. SG-34-E
AWARD
1. The claims of claimants Allardyce and
Jewell for auto and living expenses are
dismissed.
2. Claimant Jewell shall be paid the difference between his protected rate and
the rate he actually received from
November 29, 1971, on, so long as he
occupied a lower-paying position.
3. The claims of Fazekas (2 claims), Vathis,
McPherson and Fye for protected compensation are denied, except that each man shall
be given 5-days' pay in lieu of notice, less
any days on which work was available to him
between the date he was given notice and the
end of the 5-working-day period.
4. Carrier shall pay Claimant heim for 10 days
at his protected rate.
on i
Neutral Member
Dated: t9ashington, D. C.
October/r, 1973
-5-