PARTIES TO
DISPUTE:
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
11C:
Brotherhood that:
1_ The Carrier
machine operators R. L.
D.D. Jones, S.K. Rieck R.P. Wittmuss, J.T.
Maloney, J.R. Theis,
Hamm, W.J. Hauck, H.E.
Vlach, R.E.
Rains, G.
Dieatrick, L.C. Corter
Johnson and R.A. Schell
days advance notice."
2. The Claimants
at their respective st
referred
to
in part (1
OPINION OF BOARD: Th
dispute. Claimants w Nebraska, at the time
Claimants were notifie
close of shift on Sept
As a result, the
days pay for each
Thereafter, the Organi
adjudication.
The Organization
working days notice
O:
8A of the Agreement.
ILIC LAW BOARD NO. 4104
Case No. 7
Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way
Employee
vs.
Burlington Northern Railroad
aim of the System committee of the
m
e
violated the Agreement when it laid off
Frerking, J.L. 7,arybnicky, M.E. Walters,
n,
G.
Collier,
W.J.
Kreitman, S.W. Stoakes,
Poppas, K,p. Wittmucs, T.L. wallman, J.
M .A. Roloff, D.L. Shamburg, S.L. Aver, L.J.
andtlandt, G.R. Stall; Track Laborers R.J.
Bauer,
O.F.
Mr.Kinney, L.G. Peters, R.W.
,.D.M. Schmidt, D. L. Brass, R.J. Smith, D. L.
itzki, without benefit of five (5) working
(System File
a
Gr MWA 82-12-6B)
hall each be allowed eight (8) hours of pay
aight time rates bacauce of the violation
hnreol.
relevant facts of this claim are not in
e assigned to Tie Gang #1 at Table 17oek,
his dispute arose. On September 24. 1982,
that their gang would be abolished at the
mbar 30, 1982.
rganization filed this claim, seeking one
laimaht. Carrier timely rejected it.
ation advanced the claim to this Board for
ontends that Carrier failed to give five
the gang's abolition, as required by Rule
n its view, only four days working notice
1/I D4.
--?
Case No. 7
(Monday, September 27
Organization maintain to the clear language
Carrier, however,
given. It points out
start of their shift
abolition. Therefore,
counted as a day of n Carrier also asse
claim from the prope Carrier points out the
until
some three yea Thus, Carrier submits,
as well.
After a review of
that the claim must b for five (5) working
Claimants were notif September 24, 1982 o counted as a working
days notice. Since C1
to seek
alternate wor
Accordingly, the claim
s
Thursday September 30). Therefore, the
that the claim must ba sustained pursuant
f Rule 8A.
asserts that five days working notice was
that Claimants wore notified, prior to the
on September 24, 1982, of the
carrier insists that September 24
o
r
r
gang s
must be
ice, thereby producing five days notice,
is that the organization did not appeal the
y to this Board in a reasonable manner.
the organization did not advance the claim
after it was rejected on the property.
the claim must be rejected for thin reason
e
i
f
the record evidence, the Board is convinced
Idenied. Rule 8A of the Agreement provides
d~ys notice in advance of a force reduction.
d prior to
the
start of their shift on
the abolishment. As such, this date is
d y to be included in the required five (5)
imants did have September 24, 1982 as a day
it must be counted as a day of notice.
must be denied.
2
.. a
Case No. 7
FINDINGS: The
Public w Board No. 4104 upon the whole record and
all of the evidence, finds and holds:
That the Carrier and the Employees involved in this dispute
are
respectively carrier and Employees within the meaning of the
Railway
Labor Act ac approved June 21, 1934;
That the Public w Board No. 4104 has the jurisdiction over
the dispute involved h
reins
and
That the Agreemen was not violated.
AWARD: Claim denied.
`P.
S
nson, Employs MeLber E. llinen, carrier member
MZrt
. Scheinman, Neutral member
3