' Award No. 4


Parties Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees
 to and
 Dispute Norfolk and Western Railway Company
 (Former Wabash Railroad)

 Stateirent bier violated the effective Agreeaent, December 1, 1963, not
 of Claim: limited to the articles and rules of the BM<r7E agreement, were violated
 as provided in Rule 4, paragraph (3), when,
 1. On September 9, 1975 the Carrier notified M. D. Smith, regular
 assigned section laborer on the Runnels Trick Gang at the end of his
 duty on that date he would be furloughed without receiving a 5 day
 notice that he was going to be furloughed.
 2. M. C: Smith should have been given a 5 day notice as provided in
 Rule 4, paragraph E of the effective agreement.

          Therefore, request that this employee be paid 5 days, 8 hours per days additional at his respective rate for the violation in Rule 4, Paragraph E of the effective agreement.


          Findings: The Board finds, after hearing upon the whole record and all evidence, that the parties herein are Carrier and Employee within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as amended, that this Board is duly constituted by Agreement dated February 2, 1976, that it has jurisdiction of the parties and the subject matter, and that the parties were given due notice of the hearings held.


          Claimant Laborer, on September 9,1975, was one of a three man Extra Gang #46053 in charge of Extra Gang Foreman, Mr. R. Swarts. He was advised by Foreman Saarts that he was being furloughed at close of work that day. Claim alleges that he wasn't given a five days advance notice required under rule 4(3) which, in part, provides:

      ' "Except as hereinafter provided, employees regularly assigned on

          positions covered by this Agreement, will not be laid off in force

          reduction without at least five (5) warking days advance notice..."

          Foreman Swarts attests that as a result of notice from his superior

          that his force .,muld he reduced, he had given notice to his gang prior

          to their going on duty at 7:00 A.M. on Setpanber 3, 1975, that there

                                        FLA 1-)(00

                              -2- Award No. 4


        - would be a force reduction at the close of work on Tuesday, September 9.


          The Employees argued that the notice was not in writing, precise and certain as to Claimant.


          The Board finds that Nile 4(e) calls only for advance notice and not,

          as alleged, written notice. Absent a showing otherwise, we find that

          Claimant was given advance notice on Septeaber 3, 7975, that a reduc

          tion in force of the gang in which he was a r was to take place

          six days later. The fact it was later determined that only one ember

          of the gang should be reduced does not serve to alter the finding.


          in the circumstances, we are impelled-to deny this claim.


Award: Claim denied.

 A. J. G1Vingham, Emro g e Yjemuer G. C. EdcTards, Carrier Number

                    rhur~r. Van Wart, Qza, r,nan .

                    and Neutral Number


                      Issued at Atlanta, Georgia, May 25, 1977.