PARTIES) BROTHERHOOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYES
DIVISION OF THE INT'L BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS
TO )
DISPUTE ) SPRINGFIELD TERMINAL RAILWAY COMPANY







FINDINGS:

The Board, after hearing upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that the parties herein are Carrier and Employee within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as amended; this Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and, the parties were given due notice of hearing thereon.

The claim at issue involves to a certain extent the facts and circumstances that were before the Board in previously issued Award No. 27 (Case No. 27) wherein it was held that the Carrier had violated Agreement rules when it permitted an improper seniority displacement to take effect for the position of a Trackman on the Rigby I&R Crew on January 4, 2003.

In sustaining the claim in Award No. 27 this Board held in part as follows after relating the facts of record:



PLB No. 5606 AWARD NO. 26
CASE NO. 26













PL,B No. 5606

AWARD NO. 26
CASE NO. 26

The Organization says that the record does not show a chain of displacements, but rather a circumstance here that involves four employees. And in this respect, the Organization cites Award No. 29625 of the Third Division, NRAB, whereby it was held in part as follows involving the claim of three claimants, two of whom lost work, for unnecessary travel and lodging expense due to an initial displacement by an employee who did not hold seniority for the move at issue:


      The Board determines that the Carrier must accept responsibility for the chain of displacements. The Carrier retains direction of where the employees are assigned. This responsibility cannot be shifted to the employees.


Although the Organization cites several other awards, study of those awards by the Board does not find them to support the granting of a make whole allowance for other than the employee initially improperly displaced.


As noted above, argument and decisions of boards of adjustment have gone both ways in resolution of the issue in dispute. In the Board's view we believe the rule of reason should prevail. Thus, in the absence of a clear rule provision to the effect that all persons affected by a displacement made or permitted in error are entitled to be made whole, we find it would be unreasonable to hold there be a pyramiding of penalty payments because an initial displacement was subsequently determined to have been in violation of applicable agreement rules. The Board will, therefore, hold with the preponderance of the awards of record and deny the instant claim as being without merit or agreement support of record.


AWARD:

Claim denied.

Robert E. Peterson
Chair & Neutral Member

Anthony F. Lomanto

Carrier Member


Stuart A. Hulburt, Jr.
Organization Member

North Billerica, MA
Dated 10 ;3/04t",

Page 3