Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD AWTUSUMi TT BOARD Award No. 7713
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 753+
2-GTW-FO-'78

The Second. Division consisted of the: regular members and in addition Referee Irwin M. Lieberman when award was rendered.

( System Federation No. 92, Railway Employes'

Department, A. F. of L. - C. 1. 0.

Parties to Dispute: ( (Firemen & Oilers)
(
( Grand. Txvr):: Western Railroad Company

Dispute: Claim of Employes:

1. That under the current agreement Laborer Anthony Fields was

unjustly dismissed from the Carrier effective October 15, 1976.

2. That accordingly tree Carrier be ordered to reinstate this employe

with seniority xi Chts unimpaired, vacation rights unimpaired, mace

whole for all health and welfare and insurance benefits includin

Railroad Rctira_mcnt and unemyloyment insurance, and pay for all

time lose, retroactive to October 15, 19`T6.

Findings:

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

The carrier or carriers and the employ=e or employes involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and e:nploye sa:ithin 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.

Patties to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing thereon.

Claimant herein was hired by Carrier on August 2, 1976. On October 15,

1976 he was notified that his application for employment had been disapproved.
The applicable agreement does not contain any prow s 9.on for a prob ationaxnyr period and does provide (in Rule 7) fox a hearing prior to the imposition of discipline.

The sole issue in this dispute is whether Carrier had the right to disapprove Claimant's employment application seventy five days after his hire in the absence of a nx·oba;'c9_ona:xy provision in the agreement. Petitioner insists thrat Claimant vas entitled to a hearing and that there has been no past practice -va~ th the Organization on this property with respect to a probationary period. Carrier relies on a long history of practice involvinthis organization as well as others together with taro other elements: the inclusion of a 90 day probationary provision in tine
Foam 1 Award No. 7713
Page 2 Docket No. 7531+
2-GMT-FO-'78

agreements of all the other shop craft organizations and the well established
precedents in First, Second and Third Divisions' a;,vra,rds. In fact
Carrier cites a First Division Award (30G9) involving the same Carrier
and the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, which stated:

"In the absence of any time xequi.re_ment: for the disapproval of an application the rules should be construed as contemplating, such action will be taken within a reasonable. tL-Lime. In numerous schedules 90 days is fixed as such limit. 7n the instant case only 10 days more were taken by the carrier to conduct its investigation which vas apparently conducted in good faith."

In the instant case we are dealing with a period of 75 days.

the Agreement states that an employe's seniority starts at the time his .pay starts, it is cT_oTi ously conditioned upon the approval of the emplo;,~.nent application. It is well established that in the absence of any time requirement for. the disapproval of an application for e:2plor-..ent, such action must be taken within a reasonable time ox the en! ploye ~,ri11 be deemed to have been accepted ( Third Division Az~rard. 3152 among others). Based on the practice on this Carrier, attested to by Carrier'-, submissions, and the generally accepted doctrine of 90 days, the decision an the application in this case was certainly ,;,ithin a reasonable period of time (see Awards 866 and X56). The Claim must be denied.

A VT A R D .

Claim denied.

NATIOTuTAh RAILROAD ADdI7STP.~,Tv'T BOARD

By Order of Second Division

Attest: Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board

_..stto~emaxie Bx rich - Administrative Assistant

Dated t Chicago, Illinois, this 1st day of November, 1978.