M e m o r a n d

U n i t e d S t a t e s G o v e r n m e n t FORM 0-1191 (1-92)

R a i l r o a d R e t i r e m e n t b o a r d

JUN201996

L-96-29 TO: The Labor Member

PROM: Steven A. Barth

Deputy General '

Through: Catherine C. Cook 

General Counsel

SUBJECT: Deemed Current Connection

This is in response to your memorandum dated June 7, 1996, asking 

certain questions regarding the deemed current connection 

provision. That provision is contained in section 1 (o) of the 

Railroad Retirement Act which provides a two-step process for 

deeming a current connection: the individual concerned (1) must 

involuntarily and without fault have ceased rendering service and 

(2) did not thereafter decline an offer in the same class or craft. 

Implementing section 1 (o), section 216.15(b) of the Board's 

regulations provides in pertinent part that an employee has a 

deemed current connection if he or she meets the following 

requirements:

(1) Has been credited with at least 25 years of 

railroad service;

(2) Stopped working in the railroad industry 

"involuntarily and without fault" * * *.

(3) Did not decline an offer of employment in the 

same "class or craft" as his or her most recent railroad 

service; and

Section 216.15(c) provides that an employee is considered to have 

stopped railroad employment involuntarily and without fault if:

(1) The employee loses his or her job;

(2) The employee could not, through the exercise of 

seniority rights, remain in railroad service in the same 

class or craft as his or her most recent railroad 

service, regardless of the location where that service 

would be performed * * *.

(4) Was alive on October 1, 1981.
Your questions are restated below.

How is it determined that management employees have no 

"class or craft" and must be measured by a different 

standard than non-management employees?

Section 216.15(e) of the Board's regulations define "class or 

craft" as having "the same meaning as they do generally in the 

railroad industry." We have interpreted "class or craft" as 

referring to traditional craft union lines. This would appear to 

be a reasonable interpretation; however, if you believe those terms 

mean something else, please let us know. Black's Law Dictionary 

defines the term craft union as " [a] labor union all of whose 

members do the same kind of work (i.e. trade) for different 

employers and industries." Defining "class or craft" as we have 

over the years provides protection to employees by requiring that 

they take only similar jobs involving similar skills to those in 

the job they lost. Consistent with the above interpretation we 

have ruled that management employees are not in a "class or craft." 

However, if this is where the analysis ended, management employees 

who lose their job would always have a deemed current connection 

because the prohibition against declining an offer of a comparable 

job would not apply. To address this we applied a requirement that 

management employees accept "suitable employment" as described in 

Legal Opinions L-87-26 and L-89-125. In our view this placed 

management employees in a position comparable to hourly employees. 

The intention was not to place them in a preferable position.

It should be noted that the Board was advised in Legal Opinion L86-7 that under the deemed current connection provision the Board 

could define "class or craft" to mean "suitable employment;" 

however, the Board chose the more narrow interpretation embodied in 

section 216.15.

What would be the disposition of a case where an employee 

whose management position was involuntarily terminated, 

but that same employee retains seniority rights to an 

available non-management craft position?

The disposition of that case would depend on whether the nonmanagement craft position constituted "suitable employment," after 

considering the duties and pay of both positions. This is 

essentially the situation addressed in Legal Opinion L-87-26.

In L-96-14 the employee was offered a less favorable 

position and as a result was not required to accept it in 

order to retain the deemed current connection. How much 

weight was given to the 30% pay cut? The less desirable 

working conditions? The relocation requirement?

The pay cut and less desirable working conditions were given 

considerable weight. The relocation requirement was given little
or no weight and was not necessary to the determination that the 

position offered did not constitute suitable employment. I am not 

aware of any determination that has given determinative weight to 

relocation and, in view of section 216.15 (c)(2) of the Board's 

regulations, which were adopted after Legal Opinion L-89-125, I do 

not believe relocation should be considered for management 

employees.

If a non-management employee declines a job offer in the 

same class or craft but the new position has a 

substantial cut in salary or less desirable working 

conditions, would that employee have a deemed current 

connection if he or she fails to accept the position?

No. However it is not clear to me that a substantially less 

desirable job could exist in the same class or craft.

MCLitt:mcl:scm 

cel.mcl