PARTIES
 TO
 DISPUTE:

STATE"!I:_!T

O1·'

CLAIM:


S.B.A. No. 570
 Award No. 285
 Case No. 328

 SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUST.`tf.NT ?!0. 570
ESTABLISHED UNDER
AGREMC;NT OF SUMBBR 25, 1964
Chicago, Illinois - January 28, 1972

 System Federation No. 66
 Railway Employes' Department
 A.F.L. - C.I.O. - Carmen

 Soo Line Railroad Company

 That under the Anreement of September 25, 1964, the Carrier improperly dealt with and thereby damaged coach carman Richard F.'. Ginther when Passen^er Trains 3, 4, 5, and 6 between Chicago, Illinois and Superior, 4.'isconsin, and between Oxen, t2isconsin and St. Paul, .`tinnesota were dis-

 continued during ?larch 1965. Then the last rcrainin<,^. passenger trains 9 and 10 between St. Paul, Minnesota and Noyes, Minnesota were discontinued during the month of 'larch 1967, and subsequently the aforementioned coach carman was furloughed on October 23, 1967.

DISCUSSION

P\D

FI:?Dli`;CS


At Shoreham Shops there are seven Carmen seniority subdivisions. In addition, the Air Brake Shop is a separate and distinct seniority district. Carmen em?lovedi.n the Air Brake Shop accumulate seniority while employed in that facility and, if they have any, they retain their seniority

 rights in their seniority subdivision.

 Claimant was a Coach Carpenter since March 31, 1949, his - subdivision seniority date. After a furlou'-.h on July 24, 1961, he cans reeriployed in the Air Brake Shop on September 5, 1961. Thus, la held seniority in the Air Brake Shop as of September 5, 1961 and on the Coach Carpenter roster as of :(arch 31, 1949,

 On October 13, 1967 a position of Coach Carpenter tans abolished. Stanley Biernat held that position. 1!e ranked i.^_r.,ediatel.y ahead of the Claimant on the Coach Carpenters' seniority roster. And he had no seniority in the Air Brace Shop. 'Notwithstanding this fact, and for no espainable reason, Biernat displaced the Claimant in the Air Brake Shop although this 118.^p contrary to the agreement terr·s, Cla.ina nt then reverted to his Coach Carpenter seniority. Irac! this not happened, Claimant would have remained at work in the Air Brake Slop, he would not have been furloughed !nd he would have suffered no loss of position or earnings. Only Coach Carnent-2r positions t:ere abolished.

_ !sward No. 285

          ' Carrier contends that.if the Claimant has suffered a loss of earnings or an infringement of his rights, it stems from the erroreous - application of the seniority provisions in the schedule agreement. This Board has no jurisdiction to adjudicate a violation of seniority rights. It properly belongs before another forum, presumably the National Railroad Adjustment Board.


          ' But the record does not support Carrier's position. On October 17, 1967, when the Claimant was still working in the Air Brake Shop, the Carrier notified him as follows:


                        "Due to the reduction of company business, you will be furloughed nt the close of your shift Monday, October. 23, 1967."


          Carrier unquestionably then felt that it had every right to furlough the Claimant because of a decline in business. The issue of seniority or Proper forum was not raised on the nropertv. On :lay 24, 1968 Carrier wrote to the General Chairman "that it was neither the discontinuance of Trains #-9 and f110, not the farming out of work, that prompted 'fr. Ginther's furloughinlg, but rather a decline in Carrier's business, which necessitated a trimmin,^. of operating expenses through a reduction in forces . . ." The concluding paragraph in that letter says: .


                      '. "It is Carrier's position that the furlounhin^ of Mr. Ginther on October 23, 1967, was not due to causes listed, in Section 2 of. Article I of the September 25, 1964 Areenent, but rather due to a decline in Carrier's business, which is listed in Section 3 of the same Article."


          The issue before this Loard is clearly the interpretation and application of the September 25, 1964 A.-reement. .


          The only evidence of a decline in business offered by the Carrier is a comparison of gross operating revenues, net rail·..av operating revenues, net ton miles, frei;,lit train miles and loaded cars handled in 1966. and 1967. All of this is undoubtedly accurate statistical inforr:ation. But it does not show what part of the decline is attributed to a voluntary withdrawal of business and what part resulted from the discontinuance of Trains 9 and 10. This ,general information is not substantial evidence that Claimant was furloughed because of a decline in business.


          The question at issue must be answered in the affirmative. Since the Claimant was restored to his position in tli^ Air Brake Shoe on December 13, 1967, lie is entitled to protective benefits tinder the September 25, 1964 Agreement from October 23, 1967 to December 13, 1967.


                                  AWARD


                      Claim sustained in accordance with the findings,


                      Adopted at Chicngo, Illinois, January 28, 1972

Neutral :tember

 Carrier Members

 S.B.A. No. 570
 Award No. 285
 Case No. 323

        w


Lmployee.Members