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.
The record developed by the parties through the exchange of correspondence on the property reveals the following:
By letter dated February 21, 2000, the Organization asserted that after being bumped from his position by a senior Machinist on January 25, 2000, the Claimant bumped junior Machinist D. Thomas on January 28, 2000. However, the Carrier notified the Claimant that he was not qualified to bump the junior employee. The Organization protested that action stating that the Claimant was not allowed to bump the junior Machinist, "even though this was the position Claimant occupied for a period of two (2) years prior to being bumped on January 25, 2000."
By letter dated April 18, 2000, the Carrier denied the claim asserting that no violation occurred "... since the issue is whether the individuals involved were qualified for a specific position, not as to their qualifications as a Machinist in general."
By letter dated June 7, 2000, the Organization again pointed out that the Claimant "had worked a Machinist Maintenance position for two (2) years prior to January 25 when he was displaced and his subsequent bump was disallowed by the Carrier on January 28, 2000." The Organization then inquired, "How can the Carrier justify and support their actions of claiming Machinist Asche was qualified to work a position for two (2) years and then state he is not qualified to work the position a mere two (2) days later"?
As the Carrier points out in its August 3, 2000 letter, Rule 22(g) provides that "[t]he exercising of seniority to displace junior employees ... will be permitted only when existing assignments are cancelled, in which case the employee affected may, within five (5) days, displace any employee his junior whose position he is qualified to fill." The Carrier also properly points out in that letter that "[t]he key wor[d] in the above is `qualified'."
A determination that an employee is not qualified to fill a position is a managerial decision which this Board will not disturb unless there is evidence that the Carrier's decision is arbitrary. A Carrier makes an arbitrary decision when it is shown that the decision is without a rational basis, justification or excuse.
In terms of whether the Claimant was "qualified" to displace the junior Machinist Thomas, the record as developed on the property shows that the Organization contended that the Claimant was qualified because the Claimant had worked a Machinist Maintenance position for two years prior to his being displaced by a senior employee. In response, in the record as developed on the property, all the Carrier stated was that the Claimant was not qualified. Had the Carrier pointed out facts like those quoted above from its submission (i.e., requirements for crane inspection certification and operation of a milling machine and a lathe) and shown why it determined that such certification and requirements were necessary, perhaps the result in this case would have been different. But this Board is limited to the facts in the record as developed on the property - and those facts only show the Carrier stating that the Claimant was not qualified after the Organization stated that the Claimant had held a Machinist Maintenance position for two years prior to his being bumped.
In the face of the Organization's showing on the property, the Carrier had to do more than simply state the Claimant was not qualified. When the Organization made its showing that the Claimant had held a Machinist Maintenance position for two years prior to his being bumped, the burden shifted to the Carrier to further Form 1 Award No. 13847
explain why it determined that the Claimant was not qualified - i.e., the Carrier had to articulate a rational basis, justification of excuse for its determination. The Carrier was obligated to respond on the property with facts and assertions similar to those made in its submission. But this Board cannot consider the additional facts asserted in the Carrier's submission. The Organization did not have the opportunity to refute those new facts.
We therefore find, based upon the limited facts developed by the parties on the property, that there was no rational basis, justification or excuse for the Carrier's determination that the Claimant was not qualified. We therefore find that the Carrier was arbitrary when it determined that the Claimant was not qualified to bump the junior Machinist. From the record developed on the property, this Board has no clue why the Carrier considered the Claimant not qualified. For those reasons, the claim shall therefore be sustained, the Claimant shall be allowed to exercise his displacement rights (should he choose to do so) and the Claimant shall be made whole.
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that an award favorable to the Claimant(s) be made. The Carrier is ordered to make the Award effective on or before 30 days following the postmark date the Award is transmitted to the parties.