Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 7701
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 7537
2-B=-EW-'78

The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee Abraham Weiss when award was rendered.

( System Federation No. 7, Railway Employes'

( Department, A. F. of L. - C. I. 0.

Parties to Dis-oute: ( (Electrical Workers)

(

( Burlington Northern Inc.

Dispute: Claim of Employes:

1. That in violation of the current agreement the Burlington Northern, Inc. assigned Mr. James Clagett, a management trainee, to the position of Assistant Communications Supervisor at Lincoln, Nebraska, over Mr. W. T. Smoot Jr. Electronic Technician Communications Debartment.

2. That accordingly the Carrier be ordered to remove Mr. Clagstt from his position and that he b e replaced by Mr. W. T. Smoot, Jr.

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 ox 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 3oard has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.

Par-ties to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing thereon.

This is a dispute concerning Carrier's alleged failure to consider Claimant for promotion to the position of Assistant Communications Supervisor at Lincoln, Nebraska. Aside from all the procedural issues raised in this dispute we think the crux of the matter lies in Rule 13 of the Agreement, which merely states that "Mechanics in service will be given preference for promotion to appointive supervisory positions relating to their respective craft. "

Under Rule 13 management is simply required to give employees such as Claimant preference. The rule does not mandate that such employees be promoted, leaving management the judge of fitness and ability. In a similar case, Referee Lieberman wrote in Award 6578:
Foam 1 Award No. 7,701
Page 2 Docket No. 7537
2-BNI-EW-'78
"Was Carrier's conduct in filling the supervisory
vacancies contrary to the provisions of Rule 19?
We think not. The right to select employees and
make judgments as to their competence is solely
a function and responsibility of management,
unless expressly limited by contract. (See
Awards 4525 and Third Division Award 3151 among
others.) Even more emphasis must be placed on
management. Unless there are specific Rule pro
scriptions or management has acted in an arbitrary
and capricious manner thus prejudicing rights,
there can b e no invasion of management's prerogative
to assess competence of its employees for purposes
of promotion among other things. In the dispute
before us there is no evidence to show that Claimants
were not 'considered' for promotion, as required by
Rule 19(a). There certainly is no rule support for
the proposition that they should have been selected
for the promotions on any basis. The claim must be
denied."

Similarly, in this case, there is no basis or rule support for the claim and it must b e denied.

A W A R D

Claim denied.

NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUST= BOARD

By Order of Second Division

Attest: Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board

By .,r~ , ..~,.,.,.. a .~r.

"Rosemarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant

Dated at Chicago, I11inois, this 25th day of October, 1978.