Foam 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 7+15
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 7353
2-CRI&P-FO-'77





Parties to Dispute: ( (Firemen & Oilers)




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, 193..

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




December 3, 1975, Claimant was employed as a Car Department Laborer in Carrier's Des Moines, Iowa facility. On December 3, 1975, Claimant was furloughed in a reduction of forces due to a serious decline in business.
Form 1 Award No. 7.15
Page 2 Docket No. 7353


At this time, Claimant advised Carrier of his desire to bump an employee junior to him on the Firemen and Oilers' seniority roster, and working at the Diesel Shop or Roundhouse at Des Moines, Iowa. However, Carrier's District Master Mechanic would not allow Claimant to displace a junior employee in the Diesel Shop or Roundhouse, on the basis of Claimant's two (2) previous disqualifications as a Locomotive Laborer in September, 1971, and September, 1975.











The record before us indicates that Claimant had difficulties while working the Hostler Helper position from August 14 through August 31, 1975. Based on the daily log kept by Carrier's Mechanical Officer, we note that Claimant did not grasp instructions such as staying in sight of the Hostler when moving engines; he did not comprehend which way switches should be lined; he had trouble hooking up fuel hoses to engines; he had to be told and instructed on where and haw to sweep the floor; he was not able to operate a steam cleaning machine; he was not able to properly supply a locomotive with fuses, torpedoes, or drinking water without a detailed explanation from his foreman each time; and he washed only one side of an engine.

Now, Rule 20 has to be read in conjunction with Rule 25. That is, the more senior employee also has to be qualified for the position.

In matters of this kind the burden of proof belongs to Petitioner to prove by factual evidence of probative value that Claimant does possess the necessary qualifications, and can perform within normally acceptable standards. In the instant case, Petitioner has not proven that Claimant possessed the necessary knowledge and qualifications so as to permit seniority to prevail. Furthermore, Petitioner has not been able to show
Foam 1 Page 3

Award No . 7+15
Docket No. 7353
2-CRI&P-FO-'77

that the action of Carrier was arbitrary, capricious, or designed to circumvent the Agreement.

Numerous decisions of this Board have consistently held that it is Carrier's right to determine fitness and qualifications, and that Carrier's decision is final and conclusive unless it is evident that such action is totally unreasonable. (See Second Division Award Nos. 6897, 6873, 6760, 5924, 3782, 5190, 484+, 37+8, and 2+69; also see Third Division Award Nos. 18+62, 18353, 17948, 16871, 165+6, 16+71, 16360, 15780, 15494, 13+71, 12394, 11-572, and- 103+5).

We note Petitioner complaint that Claimant was not given adequate and proper training by Carrier. However, there is no language in the Agreement before us which requires that Claimant b e given training fox arty specific length of time, nor is there any mention of the quality of training employees are to receive.

Therefore, based on all of the foregoing, we have no choice but to deny the claim.

A W A R D

Claim denied.

NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

By Order of Second Division


Attest: Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board

Branch - Administrative Assistant

Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 2nd day of December, 1977.
S%0001

-"001