1 '
 n
 PROCEEDINGS BEFORE PUBLIC LAW BOARD NO. 3781 i
 ' t

 AWARD NO. 18 i


                                                        r


i

Carrier Member: R. O'Neill Labor Member: W. E. LaRue R

I

 fI PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

          BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYEES

:1

          VS.


          CONSOLIDATED RAIL CORPORATION


t I
 STATEMENT OF CLAIM:

          Claim of the Brotherhood (CR-1673) that:


(a) The Carrier has violated Rules 3 and 4 of the cur; rent Scheduled Agreement, and other pertaining rules as amended oil April 29, 1985, when it failed to recall Trackman J. L. Parker to

ij a temporary vacancy on Gang SC-810, but instead recalled a junior ,I trackman, R. L. Carpenter, to the position.


(b) The Claimant, being the senior qualified trackmanl and Being available, shall now be compensated at the appropriate rate of the trackman position for ten (10) hours each day on April 29 and 30, May 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 13, and 14, 1985, and thereafter,, until the Claimant is placed on the position for which his senior, ity allows.


i FINDINGS: t

Upon the whole record and all the evidence, after March 19, 1987 hearing at the National Mediation Board, Washington, D. C., the Board finds that the parties herein are Carrier and Em-

ployees within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as amended, and that this Board is duly constituted by agreement and has furl isdiction of the parties and of the subject matter.


                          OPINION


          The Claimant seeks compensation for ten (10) claim dates


i in April and May 1985, on the basis of allegations that the Car-i


,~ 1

                                                        S

P. L. Board No. 3781 - Award No. 18, Case No. 52 ;
 a
 ,i
 ~ rier violated the Agreement by recalling a junior Employee to a
 temporary track vacancy which the Claimant should have been re
 called to fill. -

 1 '
 ·1 The Organization's position is that both the Claimant and
 the junior Employee last worked on Zone 9 in the Columbus Senior;

I ~1 ity District, and that the Claimant, being the senior Employee i should have been called to fill the April 29, 1985 temporary vac;

i ancy in Gang SC-810 in that seniority district.

The position of the Carrier is that since the Claimant was not at his home when the Carrier phoned him for the temporary i vacancy on April 26, 1985, it was proper for the Carrier to calls junior Employee by phone on the same date, and that on this basis the claim should be denied.

          The record reflects that the Carrier phoned the Claim


                                                        ant's home to call him for the vacancy at 10:26 A.M. on April 26,. i 1985, and receiving no answer at the Claimant's residence, the

t carrier then called a junior Employee at 10:38 A.M. on the same date. The junior Employee accepted the temporary vacancy and reported on April 29, 1985. .

After due study of the foregoing and of the whole record inclusive of the arguments submitted by the parties in support o4 their respective positions in the case, the Board concludes that the claim is meritorious and accordingly the claim will be sus

to med on the basis hereinafter provided. I
                                                        i


          Rule 3, Section 4 of the Agreement, which governs the


                            2


                                                        I

          P. L. Board No. 3781 - Award No. 18, Case No. 52


I filling of temporary vacancies, does not prescribe any specific mode of communication in respect to calling a furloughed Employee to fill a temporary vacancy. Accordingly, the Carrier has dis-

 cretion to use the phone, the mail, a messenger service, or other
 I mode of communication so long as the Carrier's actions in the mat-, i ter constitutes a reasonable, good faith effort to comply with ap plicable Agreement provisions as determined by the overall circumstances.

                                                        In the case at hand the Carrier's action of phoning the I

. Claimant only once on April 26, followed twelve (12) minutes later by phoning the junior Employee on the same date, without making any further effort to contact the Claimant even though the junior

 Employee did not report for duty for more than two (2) days after
 i !

the initial calls were made, are found by the Board to fall substantially short of constituting a reasonable effort to contact`


                                                        the Claimant in order to apprise him of his preference to the I track vacancy in question. Accordingly the claim will be suss

I tained through May 13, 1985, this is the effective date of thlJ award of the posted position and consequently, the temporary vac ancy expired on this date.


i;
 I In view of the foregoing, and for the reasons indicated,)

 ` the claim will be sustained.
                                                        I

                                                        I

AWARD:

          Claim sustained as per the opinion.


. I
                            3

.. I
 i
          P.L. Board No. 3781 - Award No. 18, Case No. 52


                                                        i

          BY ORDER OF PUBLIC LAW BOARD NO. 3781.

i
                                                        1 t

                                                        i


                  Fred Blackwell, Neutral Member


                                          >


    R. O'Neill, Carrier Member W. E. LaRue, Labor Member


Executed on <. ~ - /~, 1987 .
 ' I

    OP:08-28\52.18


i

vi

1

 1

 1

 i 1

 1

                                                        i


                                                        i

                                                        i i


                              4


                                                        f