ERIE LiXK~WI WNi. &'.ILWLY C01vT1.NY


STIMTrMENT GE CL..IM:
        1. The Carrior violated the effective Lgrcement when on September 30, 1963, it failed to recall to sorvice Lr. C. I. Bryan, Ole; n, N. Y., and 1·r. Paul Gee, Olean, N. Y.,whan forces were increased on Section No. 7 at Randolph, N.Y.


        2. Claiiiant Bryan and Gee be now reimbursed for the loss of wages suffered by thon due to the Carrier's violation of this lgreenent, cor.-·ancinp September 30, 1963 and continuing.


FI11DINGS: Claimants are trackman whose positions on an extra. gang at Olean;
 New York, were discontinued. They elected furlough rather than exercise -
 displacement rights over junior employes who were working at locations
 from 34 to 108 riles distant frog Olean where Claimants reside. The Claim is that
 Carrier breached the controlling Lgreenent by using juror employes arid not recal- --
 ling Claimants when it later increased its force of tracl~zen on Section 7 at Ran
 dolph, New York.

 Carrier's initial position was expressed by its Division Z~-i.,ireer who pointed out in his letter of January 10, 1964, to the Local Chairman that both Claimants "failed to exercise their seniority when they were furloughed. Es no rec_uesz was received from either man, it was necessary to use junior employees. In view of these men not exercising their seniority your claiv, is here'oy denied." It is quite apparent from an exariination of the applicable ~greenent that Carrier's theory is untenable. Rule 5 deals specifically with employes who, like Claimants, - do not seek to displace junior employes within ten days after being notified that they will be affected by a force reduction. That Rule provides, in paragraph (a), that they will be considered laid-off employes governed by paragraph (d). Rule 5 (d) stipulates that "Employes laid off ,;he desire to retain their senierity rights to be recalled to service rust file in writing within ten (10) days with their foreman and. ix.ncdiate supervising officer (copy to the loccl Chairman) their r-yes - and addresses, also renew sane i_.;;bn each charge of address." Rule 5(c) prescribes =that when forces are increased or when vacancies occur, erployes laid off will be recalled to service in accordance with their seniority subject to subparaF-raph (d). Nowhere does Rule 5 require or suggest that an a-r:ploye loses the right to sub sequent recall if he fails to exercise displacement rights at the ti.-_,e of iyoff.

 Claimants fully co:u,plied with the terms and conditions of Rule 5 and n=·nifestly were entitled to recall. It was for then alone, and certainly not for any representative of manage'aent, to deterniine whether they desired recap to Randolph. Carrier had no right to assume that they would reject recall to Randolph be®ause it is 39 miles from Olean or for any other reason. Under Rule §, Claimants were en- -titlcd to mako the detoxziination.
                                            s~- , u~ - A Wo ay


3i c·. subsuqu..nt st..,.:, aft..r th, c1GL·. IU d b_,:n d,.;_i.:d by ih·: "ivizicn H..gIrvor and appoalcd, a nuw d,fonse was pr-sent-d al lr:,"inf; UL t no incr~a--o in tracknun was rat.do at RLLmdolph :;ircu the. c,:tployce in ucction 7 had ::cr,:Iy boon t:-ansforrcd froL Corry. This cont.:ntion is incons~istcnt and difficult to n:cencil·, with - th_ Division hn&in~crls statonont that based donial of the claim on Glr:ir:,r:nts' failure to oxorciso displacunent rights when furlouuhod. The record, _r>oreover, doc;s not establish to our satisfF.ction that the cot.plc:te section was transfer-ed frou Corry to Randolph.

 Rule 5 is controlling in the present case. Under its terns, the ciai-. must be sustained.

 :~D: Claire sustained.

      Dated at D:ew York, N.Y. this 29th day of October 1968.


                  /s/Harold M, VLston

                  F-ROLD k. WESTON, NEUTRAL


_ /sh. J. CunninghaL /s/R, __. Carroll
 OROAi~I2~F_TION E·aMLR Cr.RRIM MM-;BF-P.

 _2- Award No. 24
 Itel- fo·. 158