Parties to Dispute




Questions at Issue:





Opinion of the Board
 On August 15, 1977, Carrier petitioned the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) to discontinue operation of its remaining passenger trains 5 and 6 between Rock Island, Illinois, and Chicago, Illinois; as well as passenger trains 11 and 12 between Peoria, Illinois, and Chicago, Illinois. On October 20, 1978, the ICC issued a final decision granting Carrier's request,

permitting a complete cessation of its inter-city passenger train service operations. There were nine Dining Car employees in the Food Services Department that were affected by the closing down of passenger train service. . Carrier completely discontinued its inter-city passenger train service effective January 11, 1979. By letter dated January 31, 1979, Carrier's vice President-Staff advised the organization's General Chairman as follows:

      "Please be advised that on January 11, 1979, when intercity passengers trains 5 and 6 between Rock Island, Illinois, and Chicago, Illinois (and 11 and 12 between Peoria, Illinois and Chicago, Illinois), were discontinued, intercity passenger and dining service business on the Rock was wholly and completely closed out. Accordingly,

      the Job Stabilization Agreement dated February 7, _

1965, no longer applies to afford benefits to dining
 car employees after January 11, 1979."
 The Organization protested Carrier's discontinuance of
 Job Stabilization benefits in letter dated March 7, 1979, addressed
 to Carrier's Director of Labor Relations. Carrier's Director of
 Labor Relations responded to the organization's March 7 letter
 by letter dated April 30, 1979, advising that the organization's
 claim was improperly filed and thus barred from further handling
 under Rule 11-1/2 (Time Limit on Claims and Grievances) of the
 Agreement between the parties since it was not addressed to the
 appropriate Carrier officer authorized to receive claims.
 Rul.e 11-1/2 states, in pertinent part:
                          - 3 -


            "(a) All Claims or grievances must be presented in writing by or on behalf of the employee involved, to the Officer of the Carrier authorized to receive same, within 60 days from the date of the occurrence on which the claim or grievance is based..."

Neither Carrier's Vice President-Staff (in his letter of January 31, 1979) nor Carrier's Director of Labor Relations (in his letter of April 30, 1979) identified the appropriate Carrier officer with whom a claim should have been filed.
 On June 21, 1979, apparently after determining the appropriate Carrier officer was for filing claims, the Organization's General Chairman submitted this claim with Carrier's ManagerSuburban Operations. On August 15, 1979, Carrier's ManagerSuburbuan Operations declined the claim citing Rule 11-1/2 of Agreement.
 Carrier contends that the claim now before this Committee should be dismissed because it was not timely submitted to the proper Carrier officer designated to receive claims under the Time Limit on Claims and Grievances of the Agreement between the parties (Rule 11-1/2.)
 Alternatively, and on the merits, Carrier contends that the February 7, 1965 Mediation Agreement no longer applied to Claimant's because of the complete cessation of Carrier's intercity passenger service operation.
 Carrier is correct in its assertion that the Time Limit Requirements of the Schedule Agreement between the parties are applicable. The interpretation of the February 7, 1965, Mediation
                          - 4 -


Agreement (dated November 24, 1965) reads in pertinent part:
                                                      r

        "Individual claims for compensation alleged to be due pursuant to the Agreement shall be handled in accordance with the rules governing the handling of claims and grievances, including time limit rules, provided that the time limit on claims involving an interpretation of the Agreement shall begin to run until 30 days after the interpretation is rendered." However, in this dispute, the Board finds that both Carrier's

Vice President-Staff and its Director of Labor Relations acted
 in bad faith by failing to advise the Organization as to the
 name of the proper Carrier officer designated to receive such
 claims, and waiting until April 30, 1979 to respond to the
 General Chairman's March 7, 1979 letter advising that the claim
 was improperly filed. The April 30, 1979 letter was well after
 the sixty day time limit set forth in Rule 11-1/2. Carrier cannot
 now attempt to avail itself of the time limit provisions of the
 rule.
 On the merits, the Board finds that the February 7, 1965,
 Agreement did not provide protection to employees where operations
 cease, and there was no place where seniority could be exercised.
 Where there is a complete abandonment. and not merely a decline
 in business, the protective provisions of the February 7, 1965,
 Agreement have no force or effect.
 In Award No. 408 this Board stated, in pertinent

 part:

      "A thorough review of the record at hand compels

      this Board to conclude that the February 7, 1965,

      Stabilization Agreement was intended to provide

      protection to employees in the event of a decline

      in the Carrier's business. Said Agreement was not

      intended, in our opinion, to accord protection to NqL

                          - 5 -


employees when the work previously performed by them disappears entirely. The February 7, 1965, Agreement simply did not address the question of what was to happen when there was a complete cessation of the Company's business." See also Award Nos. 352, 409, and 373 of this Board. The Board agrees with Carrier that the guarantees provided were never intended as gratuities to able and qualified employees nor can they be considered in any form of a pension. Carrier is not required to maintain guarantees indefinitely when circumstances remove the possibility of any meaningful service in exchange for such guarantees. With absolutely no possibility of a resumption of Carrier's intercity passenger service, Claimant had no place else to exercise seniority. The fact that it was Carrier, and not a third party, that initiated the abandonment is not relevant in determining the rights of the employees under the February 7, 1965, Agreement.

        AWARD Both of the Questions at Issue are answered in the negative.


              Nic olas H. Zumas, Neb1tral Member


Date: May 8. 1981