Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No.
7848
SECOND DIVISION Docket No.
7541
2-CR-CM-'
79
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Irwin M. Lieberman when award was rendered.
( System Federation No. 109, Railway Employes'
( Department, A. F. of L. - C. I. 0.
Parties to Dispute: ( (Carmen)
(
( Consolidated Rail Corporation'
Dispute: Claim of Esnployes:
(a) That under the current agreement, the Consolidated Rail Corporation
damaged Car Repairer, John V. Steficiek, Reading Car Shop, Reading_
Pennsylvania, when it disqualified him in the Reading Car Shop
by not awarding him bulletined position No.
37,
Car Repairer
Leader in the Fabricating Department.
(b) That accordingly the Carrier be ordered to compensate Car
Repairer John V. Steficiek for the difference in the hourly
rate of $.06 per hour from the date of July 1,
1975
until
given the opportunity to qualify for the position of Car
Repairer Leader, plus 1-1/2% interest per month from date of
original claim.
Findings:
The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and
all the evidence, finds that:
The carrier ox 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.
Parties to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing thereon.
Claimant had a seniority date of
11/5/62
and was working as a car
Repairer on June
25, 1975.
On June
24, 1975
a Bulletin was posted which read;
"There is a vacancy in Freight Car Fabricating Shop, Reading
Car Shop, as Car Repairer Leader, in ,place of W. Mor~yex retired,
read prints and layout."
Claimant bid on the position and so did another Car Reparier, Mr. L.
Txiviets who had a seniority date of
1211466,
Txiviets was a-warded the
position: Rule 18 provides in .pertinent part:
Form 1 Award No.
78+8
Page 2 Docket No.
75+1
2-CR-CM-'
79
"Rule
18
- BtTLSETINS AND ASSIGr=S
When new jobs axe created ox vacancies occur in the
respective crafts, the oldest employes in ,point of
service shall, if sufficient ability is shown by trial,
be given preference in filling such new jobs or
vacancies as may be desirable to them ...."
Petitioner argues that Claimant had a demand right to a trial on the
bulletined position by virtue of his seniority. It is urged that Claimant,
who not only had worked since
1962
as a Car Repairer Helper, Car Repairer
Welder and Flangex had also served fox four yeas as an Assistant Foreman.
The Organization states that he was fully qualified to perform the work of
Car Repairer Leader. It is concluded b y Petitioner that Carrier failed to
give the Claimant a fair trial as ,provided for under the Rule in order to
determine his ability to perform the required work.
Carrier takes the ,position that it was generally known that Claimant was
unable to read blue prints or layout work in the fabricating shop. Further,
it is argued that Claimant's experience as an Assistant Foreman was not
relevant to the requirements of the position in question since he had been
assigned as Assistant Foreman to the work of dismantling freight cars which
did not require reading of .prints or layout. Carrier assents that the
provisions of Rule 18 presupposes that the applicant possesses the basic
requirements for the position being bid. Carrier insists that nothing in
Rule 18 requires the mandatory awarding of the position of Car Repairer
Leader to Claimant merely because of his Seniority; Carrier was not required
to perform an absurd act,
It is significant to note that at no point in the handling of this
dispute did Petitioner allege that Claimant could read blue .prints or layouts.
The basic question at issue is whether Claimant did indeed have a "demand"
right to a trial on the position by virtue of his seniority, this despite
Carrier assertion that he did not possess basic skills requisite for the
position. The cases involving fitness and ability cited by both parties in
defense of their positions are net directly relevant since the rules at
issue in those cases were substantially different than Rule 18 herein.
We cannot accept the hypothesis that Rule 18 requires the awarding of a
position in all instances based simply on seniority. The term ".... if
sufficient ability is shown by trial" does not signify on-the-job training
to acquire the necessary basic skills. It is our judgment that the Rule
contains the .presumption that the applicant possesses at least the basic
skills in order to be awarded the position on a trial basis due to seniority.
To construe the rule differently would lead to absurd and unreasonable
results. In this dispute Petitioner never asserted, much less .presented
evidence, to establish that Claimant had the basic skills to read blue
prints and layouts. Under the circumstances, the Claire must be denied.
Form 1
Page
3
Award No.
7848
Docket No.
7541
2-CR-CM-179
A W A R D
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
Attest: Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
FjoK.axie Brasch - Administrative Assistant
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 21st day of February,
1979·