Form
1
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
SECOND DIVISION
Award No. 12868
Docket No. 12595
95-2-92-2-114
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee John C. Fletcher when award was rendered.
(Brotherhood of Railway Carmen
( (Division of TCU)
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(CSX Transportation, Inc. (former
( Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company)
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
"1. That the Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company,
CSX Transportation Company, (hereinafter
referred to as `Carrier'), violated the
controlling Shop Crafts Agreement,
specifically Rule 27, when the Carrier
improperly recalled a Junior employee (0. W.
Stephens, ID # 100721) from furlough prior to
recalling Senior employee, B. E. Bailey, ID #
100716, on January 7 and 8, 1991.
2. Accordingly, the Carrier be ordered to
additionally compensate Carman B. E. Bailey
for all regular wages in the amount of two (2)
days, eight (8) hours each to be paid at the
applicable carmen's rate and other applicable
benefits for said violation."
FINDINGS:
The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole
record and all the evidence, finds that:
The carrier or carriers and the employee or employees involved
in this dispute are respectively carrier and employee 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. 12868
Page 2 Docket No. 12595
95-2-92-2-114
Following a seasonal force reduction at Carrier's Raceland Car
Shop, furloughed Carmen were recalled for duty in early January
1991. Carrier recalled a Carman junior to Claimant to work in its
Air Brake Valve Room two days before Claimant was recalled. The
organization is seeking two days pay for Claimant on the basis he
should have been recalled first. The Carrier contends that
Claimant was not recalled before the junior employee because he was
not qualified to perform the duties required of the position being
filled in the Air Brake Valve Room. Further, Carrier states, the
Rules relied on by the Organization in support of its claim do not
require that employees being recalled from furlough be given an
opportunity to work the job on a trial basis.
In Second Division Awards 12182 and 12191, this Board had the
opportunity to review two other situations involving this
organization and this Carrier arising at the same facility, the
Raceland Car Shop, wherein (1) a senior Carman was not allowed to
displace a junior employee from a position in the Air Brake Valve
Room, and (2) a furloughed junior employee was recalled ahead of
a senior furloughed employee to work a two day vacancy in the Air
Brake Valve Room. In Award 12182 the Organization contended that
Claimant was qualified to work in the Air Brake Valve Room because
he was a Journeyman Carman. In Award 12191, the Organization
argued that the recall Rule was clear and unambiguous and makes no
reference to qualifications. After an extensive discussion of the
same Rules cited in this claim, the Board in Award 12182, concluded
that "an employee must be qualified for the position to which he is
exercising a displacement." In Award 12191 the Board noted:
"At the outset, we must determine whether or not
Rule 27-1/2 contemplates the use of employees strictly on
a seniority basis without regard to qualifications. It
is our determination that it does not. First, we note
the Rule requires reference to other Rules of the
Agreement; it does not stand alone. All other Rules in
the Agreement which deal with the filling of short-term
vacancies allow the Carrier to consider qualifications.
The only Rule to which we have been referred which does
not require the employee to have previously demonstrated
he is qualified is Rule 18, which governs the filling of
bulletined vacancies. Even that Rule requires the
employee bidding a vacancy to be familiar with the work
in a general way. It provides for a trial period, which
ordinarily should not consume more than three days, for
the employee to `get the run of the work.' The Rule
further distinguishes this trial period from a period of
learning the job."
Form 1 Award No. 12868
Page 3 Docket No. 12595
95-2-92-2-114
Further, Award 12191 noted that it was the Organization's
burden to prove that Claimant was qualified and that the Carrier
erred or was arbitrary in its determination. That notion is again
embraced in this Award, and it is noted that several months after
this claim was filed, Claimant was afforded an opportunity to
demonstrate that he was capable of working in the Air Brake Shop.
However, after several days, he stated to his Supervisor that he
had physical problems in doing the work and also that he would have
a problem learning the work.
The claim is without merit.
AWARD
Claim denied.
O R D E R
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified
above, hereby orders that an award favorable to the Claimant(s) not
be made.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 17th day of April 1995.