F': ,-.1 1. NATIONAL RA.TLROAD f"~."'STIE~VT BOARD Award No. 7210
SECC)ND i:r'ISION Docket No. 6988
2-OPT-Ew-' 77



( System Federation No. 162, Railway Employes'
( Department, A. F. of L. - C. I. 0.
Parties to Dispute: ( (Electrical Workers)
( Southern Pacific Transportation Company
( Texas and Louisiana Lines

Dispute: Claim of Employes:











Findings:

The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and. all the evidence, finds that:

The carrier or carriers and the employe or employes involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employe within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 1934.

This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.



Claimant, Class A Lineman, held the temporary position of Radio Equipment Installer, Position No. 9, Location No. 2109, with headquarters at San Antonio, Texas. The duties of this position involved primarily responsibilities for servicing and maintaining district pole~lines.

On February 19, 1974;-Carrier posted a Linemen's Vacancy Bulletin advertising for bids the temporary position of Radio Equipment Installer, Position No. 2, Location No. 2189, home station at San Antonio; Texas. The prior incumbent of this position was assigned and performed radio bench work.

Claimant bid for Position No. 2. Linemen's Assignment Bulletin No. 11-A, dated March 4, 1974, awarded Position No. 2 to Claimant. Position No. 9, vacated by Claimant, was bulletined and on April 10, 1974 awarded to Mr. G. C.

Weber who had less seniority than Claimant.
~:; n;1 INo. Award 7210
Page 2 Docket No. 6988
2-S PI -EW-' 77

Claimant was continued on tie gerer&l line work assignment performed by him while incumbent of Position No. 9, Mr. Weber, was assigned to the radio bench work which had been performed by Claimant's predecessor in Position No. 2.

The claim at issue is that the failure to assign the radio bench work of Position No. 2 to Claimant, as the successful, applicant for that position, v.jlates Rule 13 of the controlling agreement.

Carrier contends that because none of the nine equipment installers at San Antonio can be expected to efficiently perform all work required by the multitudinous variety of equipment involved, it must be allowed to assign work within the equipment installer's classification to the individual "best suited" for the work. Carrier argues that claimant's assignment was proper under Rule 2 and in accordance with Rule 13 in that the language of bulletins advertising Radio Equipment Installer position vacancies uniformly stated in identical wording that Linemen assigned as equipment installers may be required to perfoxzn linemen's work.

"Classification of Work", Rule 2, of the applicable agreement provides, in part,



Class A includes "Linemen assigned as equipment installers ..."

Rule 13, "Bulletining Vacancies," reads to the extent pertinent, as follows:







Fox-.,


Award No. 7210

Docket No. 6988

2-SPT-Ew-'77


"BULLETUTIN,-r TEn::.-~RAIri ,iACANCIES

"Vacancies known to be of thirty (30) days or more duration will be placed under bulletin as temporary vacancies and assignments made in the manner provided in this rule..."

Rule 2 defines generally the types of linemen's,work which may be assigned in the respective classes. Rule 13 specifically regulates the assignment of a position when a vacancy occurs. Job content is -an essential ingredient of a position and necessarily follows the assignment of a vacancy to the successful bidder pursuant to the rule.

Thus, the assignment of Radio Equipment Installer Position No. 2 to claimant in accordance with the procedures for filling vacancies under Rule 13 transferred to him the job content of that position, which included radio bench work. Under the established canons of contract interpretation, the specific provisions of Rule 13 covering the filling of vacancies must be construed to prevail over and qualify the meaning and effect of the general provisions of Rule 2. The unilateral statements in the vacancy bulletins concerning the assignability of linemen's work do not blunt the governing effect of Rule 13.

Furthermore, Rule 13 explicitly grants preference to a senior employe in filling vacancies "if sufficient ability is shown by trial." Under this standard, Claimant's ability to perform the work of the vacant position must be measured or matched against the requirements of the job. Under the Rule 13, such measurement of ability may be made by "fair trial". No provision of the rule permitted comparison of Claimant's qualifications with the qualifications of other employes; and it was improper for Carrier to do so.

Accordingly, the claim must be sustained.

A W A R D

Claim sustained.

NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

By Order of Second Division


Attest: Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board

By




Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 12th day of January, 1977.