substantial decline in business triggering the provisions of Article I, Section 3 of the February 7, 1965 Job Stabilization Agreement as amended. Article I, Section 3 provides:
The parties' disagreement centers on the Carrier's method of calculating the reduction in the number of protected employees. Article I, Section 3 permits the Carrier to exclude all employees "...whose protective status has been suspended..." from the aggregate amount of protected employees before calculating the number of junior protected employees who would, for the duration of the business decline, not be entitled to protective benefits.
The Carrier subtracted those off-in-force-reduction employees who filed Rule 17-C(2) and 17-C(6) notices from the total number of protected employees. The Carrier reasoned that since an employee who files a Rule 17-C notice limits his recall rights, the employee's protection is suspended.
The Organization argues that filing a Rule 17-C recall limitation does not automatically suspend a worker's protection. Consequently, these employees remain protected and should be included in Carrier's Article I, Section 3 force reduction computations.
We decided in Award No. 444 that the mere act of filing a Rule 17-C(2) recall restriction does not activate a conclusive presumption that the employee's protection is suspended under Article II, Section 1. While it is likely that a strong correlation exists between the employee's voluntary
Case No. CL-135-W election to limit his recall area and the ultimate suspension of his protection, the relationship is only speculative at the time a protected worker makes a Rule 17-C(2) filing. Consequently, when making its calculations under Article I, Section 3, the Carrier cannot exclude off-in-force-reduction employees who have filed a Rule 17-C(2) and (6) notice based solely on the theory that the filing itself is tantamount to a suspension of protection.
In Award No. 444, this Board explained when such workers suffer a suspension in protective benefits. Once employees incur a suspension in benefits per Award No. 444, the Carrier is free to deduct those employees from gross number of protected employees before computing the reduction in the number of protected employees.
The Answers to Questions 1 and 2 are "Yes, to the extent consistent with our Opinion." Question 3 is remanded to the property per our Opinion and Award No. 444.