STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood: '
1. The Carrier violated the Agreement when it assigned Miss Mary Murphy to position of Group Head, Private Car Line Mileage Group, Car Accountant's Office, 63rd St., Chicago, on position advertised on vacancy bulletin No. 7 dated February 12, 1945 and declined to consider application of T. J. O'Connor, the senior employe bidding on this vacancy.
2. That T. J. O'Connor be assigned to the position No 17 covered by Bulletin No. 7 and compensated for all monetary losses suffered.
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: On February 12, 1945, position No. 17, title Group Head, Private Car Line Mileage Group, rate 8.50% per day was advertised on Vacancy Bulletin No. 7 in office of Car Accountant, 63rd Street, Chicago.
The position was awarded to Miss Mary Murphy with seniority date of Sept. 29 1919. The application of T. J. O'Connor with seniority date of March 18, 1918 was not given proper consideration.
The position of Group Head of the Mileage Group has but few supervisory duties. Those duties are exercised by the Per Diem Dept. Head Clerk, Mr. J. O. Ryan.
There are a number of group head positions in the various 63rd St. accounting offices. They are bulletined positions covered by all rules of the Clerks' Agreement. Up to the time of this grievance there had not been any extraordinary talent required of the successful applicants for such positions. About all that was required was a little cooperation by ail concerned for bidders on such positions to qualify.
Mr. O'Connor was the senior bidder and has had wide experience as a clerk on the I. C. System and has qualified on all previous positions held by him.
He worked in 1913 as a yard clerk for the Wabash railroad. During period 1914 to 1918 he worked in the office of Auditor of Freight Receipts at 63rd Street as claim clerk, claim percenter and waybill correction clerk. During period 1918-1936 he worked in the freight offices of the Illinois Cen-
The Carrier maintains it has shown by conclusive evidence and discussion that it has adhered strictly to the provisions of the promotion rule. Rule 6, by promoting the senior applicant possessing sufficient fitness and ability for the disputed position and maintains, further, that the claim should be denied for the following reasons:
OPINION OF BOARD: T. J. O'Connor, with seniority.date of March 18, 1918, made application for the bulletined position, February 12, 1945 Group Head, Private Car Line Mileage Group, Car Accountant's Office, 63rd Street, Chicago, Illinois. The position required familiarity with mileage tariffs, figuring of mileage, to check and allot the work of the Bureau, to direct all functions thereof, prepare detailed drafts of reports, set up summaries, and prepare abstracts of the summaries by various mileage routes for payments to car owners. Mary Murphy, with seniority date of September 29, 1919, also made application for the position and was accepted. Mr. O'Connor has worked on various positions in the Clerical Department of the Carrier which are detailed in the Employes' submission, and which we deem unnecessary to repeat here. Consideration has been given to this evidence. For the past few years his work has been a compilation of trackage statements. He handled the Chicago Terminal trackage work. The Carrier asserts it gave adequate consideration to O'Connor's application; that his hearing was very defective and would constitute a great handicap on the position he sought, since it entails oral intercourse not of a routine nature and where new problems were constantly being discussed; that the former positions held by O'Connor were subordinate, and he would not be qualified to handle this position, due also to the fact that he would have to 'supervise and train employes, and the position is not of a routine nature while the 3466-13 689
work that he previously performed was not complicated. This position also deal's with large sums of money for mileage to large numbers of private car owners.
The Petitioner's contention is that the Carrier by its conduct in this case violated Rule 6 and Rule 9 of the Agreement. It is the function of management to select competent employes. Except when it has limited itself by contract, the right of selection is wholly within the discretion of management. Award 3151.
Under the cited rule, (Rule 6 in the instant case) the Carrier has the right to determine, in the first instance, the fitness and ability of applicants for the position. Award 2427. Fitness and ability for promotion to a position of greater responsibility must be commensurate with the requirements of the position to be filled. Award 2990. Fitness and ability does not mean that the applicant is immediately qualified to step in and assume the duties of the position without guidance or assistance Award 2427. Award 3139, cited by the Petitioner, involving the Carrier and the Organization as in the instant case, this Board said Rule 6 does not require experience before an employe can bid for new work. If that were the case, it would be practically impossible to secure employes for new positions. The rule requires fitness and ability. The fact that under Rule 9, there is a thirty-day qualifying period indicates that employes may not have experience in new work, and yet are given the opportunity to qualify to determine if they measure up to the standard of fitness and ability. We are in accord with the language used in Award 3139. However, it is the duty of carrier as heretofore pointed out, in the first instance to determine the fitness and ability of the applicant.
After the carrier has determined that a senior applicant lacks sufficient fitness, the burden is upon such applicant to establish that he possesses sufficient fitness and ability to occupy the position. Award 1147.
We cannot substitute our judgment for that of the carrier in matters of this kind. Our function is limited to a review of the carrier's decision to ascertain whether it was made in good faith upon sufficient supporting evidence, or whether it was the result of capricious or arbitrary action without reasonable support in the record before us.
In the record before us, analyzed with the rules involved in mind and the awards heretofore set out, we conclude the claim should be denied.
FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, after giving the parties to this dispute due notice of hearing thereon, and upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:.