STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood:
(1) That Senior B&B Foreman F. Douglass, instead of Junior B&B Foreman Robert Kerr, should have been assigned to the position of Foreman advertised on Bulletin No. 6, under date of August 7, 1946; and
(2) That B&B Foreman F. Douglass should be allowed the difference in pay between what he did receive and what he would have received had be been awarded position of Foreman advertised on Bulletin No. 6.
JOINT STATEMENT OF FACTS: Under date of August 7, 1946, a position of Foreman was advertised in the B&B Department on Bulletin No. 6. The following employes of the B&B Department, with seniority as indi- cated, placed a bid on this position:
Under date of August 27, 1946, the position was awarded to Robert Kerr, effective September 3, 1946.
Agreement between the Grand Trunk Western Railroad and the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes is by reference made a part of this Statement of Facts.
POSITION OF EMPLOYES: Article 111, Section (b) of the effective agreement provides as follows:
OPINION OF BOARD: On August 7, 1946, the Carrier bulletined the position of a permanent vacancy of a B&B Foreman, being the shop foreman at Durand Michigan. Five men bid on the position, including the claimant and Robert Kerr. On August 27, 1946, the position was awarded to Robert Kerr effective as of September 3 1946. Douglass had a seniority as foreman dating from January 16, 1916, whereas Kerr had such rating from April 1, 1927.
Article III, Section (b) of the effective agreement between the parties and here applicable provides in part as follows:
There is no question of promotion involved in this case and, based on seniority, Douglass is entitled to the position provided he is qualified as in the aforesaid rule provided. Under this rule the determination of the applicant's qualifications is primarily the responsibility of the Carrier and it is only in those instances where it can be shown that the Carrier's actions were
influenced by~ bias, prejudice or by an arbitrary and capricious purpose to circumvent the spirit and intention of the Agreement that a claim that the Agreement has been violated can be sustained. We cannot substitute our judgment :for that of the Carrier in matters of this nature. Our function is limited to a review of the Carrier's decision to ascertain whether it was made in good faith and upon sufficient supporting evidence or whether it was the result of an abuse of its discretion. "
The presumption of Douglass' qualifications that arise by reason of his many years.; of service as a foreman is not necessarily conclusive and it relates primarily to the types of operation of which he has been in charge. This fact is evidenced by the agreement of the parties wherein, under circumstances such as here, it leaves that question to the discretion of the Carrier subject, of course, to the condition that it must not abuse that right. Here we find the position for which Douglass bid much broader in its scope of operations than those covered by his previous work. It involved the supervision of classes of work for which he has had no previous experience.
The record in this case does not warrant any interference by this Board with the decision made by the Carrier.
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:
That the Carrier and the Employes involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934;
That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and