Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
SECOND DIVISION ' Award No. 12478
Docket No. 12029
92-2-90-2-189
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee John C. Fletcher when award was rendered.
( International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
( Consolidated Rail Corporation
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
Grievance and time claim filed with the Consolidated Rail
Corporation on behalf of Radio Maintainer Luther Selby, Jr., Toledo,
Ohio, by letter dated March 6, 1989, as set forth therein, particularly:
`This letter is a grievance and time claim on behalf
of Mr. Luther Selby, Jr. Radio Television and Electronic
Maintainer, as a-result of a letter by Mr. J. L. Smith
dated 1-13-89 Disqualifying Mr. L. Selby, Jr. on this
position.
I request that Mr. Selby be reinstated and made
whole in respect to time in grade and pay and
allowances due or to become due which would include,
one eight hour days pay at the straight time rate, for
each working day and each holiday, starting with
January 14, 1989 and continuing until Mr. Selby is
reinstated.'
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.
Form 1 ~ Award No.12478
Page 2 Docket No. 12029
92-2-90-2-189
The Claim involved in this Docket seeks compensation for the time
that Claimant did not work because he had been disqualified account unable
to satisfy the requirements of the job. A number of allegations have been
advanced concerning the quickness of the disqualification following Claimant's
assignment to the position, his basic qualifications and certification as a
Radio Maintainer and the length of time he was out of service following the
disqualification. Each of these, however, seem to miss the point. The record
is clear that Claimant encouraged Carrier to effect his disqualification.
In fact on on his last day of work he left early, commenting to his Supervisor that he knew where the disqualification notice could be sent. Accordingly, the Board is unable to find, in this record that the disqualification
was capricious and unjustified.
Even if the Board were able to find that the disqualification were
flawed, Claimant, nonetheless, would not be entitled to compensation for
the ten months that he was out of service. At the time of his disqualification he could have exercised seniority to another position (there were three
junior employees working in the shop at the time) but elected not to do so.
In the circumstances of this case this Board is unable to find that
Claimant's disqualification was improper or that he is entitled to compensation for the time he was out of service.
A W A R D
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
Attest:
ancy J. v - Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 18th day of November 1992.