Fourth Division Award No. 4292 (Muessig) (RYA/Seaboard System RR former L&N)

"Under the facts of this dispute, the burden falls upon the Carrier to show that ten days before September 8, 1983, it notified the General Chairman "by telephone (confirmed in writing) or telegram. It failed on both counts."

Fourth Division Award No. 4361 (Stallworth) (RYA/Missouri Pacific RR)

"Receipt of effective notice is always subject to possible mitigating circumstances (change of address, proof of mailing and so on). The Rule involved addresses those potential problems by severely restricting the method of notification involved. A 'letter' is not included as a primary method of notification in that rule (it is, instead, supportive of the telephone call requirement). Carrier certainly has experience in knowing the difference, as for example, in cases where 'Certified Mail' is a notification requirement.

Logic would suggest that if, indeed, Carrier was unable to locate the General Chairman by telephone (at his home, his office, or at his place of work for Carrier) prudence would be followed and a telegram would be sent, go so far as to track him down in Florida. Carrier however, did not exercise prudence, and, instead violated the Agreement."

Fourth Division Award No. 3211 (Lieberman) (RYA/Grand Trunk Western RR)

"Carrier did not in this case notify the Organization as required by the Mediation Agreement."

Fourth Division Award No. 3479 (McBrearty) (RYA/Norfolk and Western Ry)

"We are concerned here that the Organization lost a valuable right under the agreement - a right to meet with the Carrier for the purpose of discussing the abolishments. Such contractual rights cannot be lightly disregarded."

Fourth Division Award No. 3802 (Dennis) (RYA/Southern Railway Co.)

"That requirement is not insignificant and cannot be ignored by this Board when it is violated."

Fourth Division Award No. 3056 (O'Brien) (RYA/Lehigh and New England Railway Co.)

"However, as we stated in Award 3054 the proper measure of damages for this violation was limited to the period of time which Carrier failed to properly give under the Agreement, which in the present claim was five days."

Fourth Division Award No. 3054 (O'Brien) (RYA/Lehigh and New England Railway Co.)

"However, we subscribe to the line of authority that holds that the proper measure of damages in a claim such as that before us is limited to the period of time which Carrier failed to properly give under the Agreement, which in the instant claim was five days. We are without authority to order Carrier to re-establish claimant's former position, however."

Fourth Division Award No. 3377 (Dolnick) (RYA/Seaboard Coast Line RR Co.)

"We have held that the proper measure of damages in such a case is limited to the period of time which Carrier failed to properly give under the Agreement."

Fourth Division Award No. 4477 (Stallworth) (RYA/Consolidated Rail Corp.)

"The Carrier failed only to give proper notice to the Organization, therefore, it is not entirely clear who is entitled to damages and what those damages should be, and the Parties have not addressed this issue."

Third Division Award No. 29924 (Fletcher) (/Consolidated Rail Corp.)

"This continuation constructively canceled the earlier notice, because it was not made effective. When the actual force reduction occurred, it was necessary to effect the reduction with proper notice under Rule 6. This was not done. The Claim has merit. It will be sustained."