Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 12347
- SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 12041
92-2-90-2-251
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee John C. Fletcher when award was rendered.
(Brotherhood Railway Carmen/Division of TCU
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(Elgin, Joliet and Eastern Railway Company
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
1. That the Elgin, Joliet & Eastern Railway Company violated the
current working Agreement when they disqualified Carman B. G. Powell as Mobile
Crane Operator effective at 7:00 a.m., Tuesday, June 20, 1989.
2. That the Elgin, Joliet & Eastern Railway Company be ordered to
compensate Carman B. G. Powell (hereinafter referred to as Claimant), who was
available, qualified and willing to perform the work of his regular assignment
prior to June 30, 1989 as Mobile Crane Operator, as required by Rule 50, 79,
97 and 103 of the current working Agreement.
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 employes 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.
Effective July 21, 1988, truck drivers employed by the Nation's rail
carriers were subjected to Commercial Driver Testing and Licensing Standards
promulgated by the Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. (An attempt was made to exempt some drivers, but this was not successful.) Under these regulations Claimant was required to pass a medical examination in order to be eligible to continue to operate a mobile crane. On June
2, 1989, Claimant was examined by a Carrier doctor and the results of this
examination were forwarded to Carrier's Medical Director. Upon receipt of the
results of the examination, the Medical Director notified Claimant's supervisor by telephone that he had failed the Federal physical qualification test
because of a hearing loss. Claimant was immediately disqualified as a Mobile
Crane Operator and displaced onto a Carman assignment at the Gary, Indiana
Repair Track. Claimant worked several days, took fifteen days vacation and a
personal day, marked off work for an extended period of time and then several
months later, retired on a disability pension.
Form 1 Award No. 12347
Page 2 Docket No. 12041
92-2-90-2-251
The Organization contends that under Rule 103 of the Agreement, Claimant was improperly notified of his disqualification. It argues that he should
have been given written notice before the disqualification could be placed
into effect. Carrier did not do so until nine days after Claimant was verbally advised of the disqualification; accordingly, he is entitled to compensation equaling the difference between the Mobile Crane Operator's rate and
the Carman's rate, a total of $25.50 for the nine day period. The Organization states in its Submission that
"...
Claimant was
...
qualified and willing
to perform his regular duty
...
as Mobile Crane Operator, but was not able [to
do so] by
...
Carrier's own fault."
The Organization takes the position that until Claimant received
notice of medical disqualification in writing under Rule 103, he was qualified
to operate the mobile crane. This approach is just backwards. After the regulations were changed in 1988 (and upon failure of the Nation's carriers to
secure an exception for its employees) operators of highway equipment were
not qualified until such time as they passed the necessary medical examination and possessed a valid medical certificate. With regard to the inference
that Claimant could not be removed from the Mobile Crane Operator position
until after he received notice under Rule 103, the Board notes that the Rule
does not specifically require notice in writing before being taken off the
job, only that he be told, in writing, the reasons for the disqualification.
While the notice must be timely, so that if it is disputed it may be handled
promptly, it is not required prior to removal from the job.
The Claim is without merit.
A W A R D
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
Attest: .i
ancy J. r -.Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 10th day of June 1992.