PUBLIC LAW
BOARD N0. 4353
Parties
to the
Dispute
ME ~] 0.".
1
9 8 7
LAC07 : _:a;(:;NS GEPp.RTPA:hIT
BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE
OF WAY EMPLOYES
VS.
NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER
CORPORATION
STATEMENT OF CLAIM
In its submission, the Organization indicated that its
claim is as follows:
Claim of the Brotherhood (NEC-BMWE-SD-1482) that:
(a) The Carrier has violated the current MW Agreement,
particularly Rule 18, when it terminated the seniority
of Trackman James Owens on the Northeast Corridor Northern
Seniority District.
(b) Claimant Ovens shall have all seniority restored
without loss of compensation and shall have restored all
privileges and benefits he enjoyed prior to his termination.
Carrier maintains that a claim was not advanced properly
in accordance with Rule 64.
OPINION OF THE BOARD
Case No. 2
By letter dated May 19, 1986, Carrier notified Claimant that it had
invoked Rule 18 (which it considers to be a self-implementing Rule) and
was terminating him from service. Rule 18 deals with Reduction in
Force--Retaining Rank on Roster and mandates in Section (d) that
"An employe who fails to comply with the provisions of paragraphs
(b) and (c) of this Rule will forfeit his seniority and his name will
be removed from the seniority roster." Specifically, Carrier maintains
that Claimant failed to either exercise seniority or file furlough
within ten days from the date of being displaced.
Carrier raises numerous objections on procedural grounds concerning the Grievant's alleged failure to file a claim in accordance with
Rule 64 or to indicate a remedy sought. While this Board agrees with
Carrier that there were defects in the handling of the claim on the
property, the threshhold question here is whether there was justification for Claimant's failure to meet the ten-day deadline specified
in Rule 18 and, if not, whether Carrier was justified in taking the
position that Claimant has invoked the termination of his employment.
The Organization contends that Claimant should not be held to
~r
the ten-day limitation since "May 18, 1986, was a Sunday and no one
would be available in the Supervisor's office nor the Division Engineer's
office." This Board does not find this argument persuasive. Inevitably, there will be at least one Sunday in any ten-day period. Had
the parties intended that employes be given ten working days in which
to respond rather than ten calendar days, they could have and should
have so indicated in their Agreement. Here, we find the following
Award to be particularly on point:
Lt353=D
FIRST DIVISION AWARD N0. 15902:
When time limitations, for the performance of an act, are
embodied in an agreement, with precision, the parties are
contractually obligated to comply with them. Whether the
limitations are found in practice to be harsh, not equitable, or unreasonable is no concern of this Board. The
remedy for such ills is negotiations between the parties.
Our function is by statute confined to interpretation of
the contract. We cannot by decision alter, vary, add to
or subtract from the agreement of the parties. We have
no power to dispense our sense of what we might consider
lust and equitable under the circumstances--the terms of
the contract are absolute.
Claimant failed to respond in a timely manner. This Board must
conclude that Rule 18 is a self-implementing Rule and that, as a consequence, Carrier was correct in assuming that Claimant's termination was
self-invoked.
AWARD
Claim denied.
J 5
c.
U .
C. H. Gold Neut al Chairman
i~ 11.~
.,./ghn
J. . Davi on, Employe Mem er C. E. Woo cock III, 'arrier I mber
late of Approval
\43s 3-,)-