ST. LOUIS SOUTHWESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY
OF TEXAS
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that Carrier violated the Clerks' Agreement:
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: R. B. Golding was employed by the Carrier on October 23 1944 and at the time of this claim held Group 2 and Group 3 seniority as of October 23, 1944, but held no Group 1 seniority. Prior to September 1, 1949, R. B. Golding was regularly assigned to the position of Issue Man, Back Room, General Store, at a daily salary of $8.34. On Setember 1, 1949, he was assigned to a combination position of Issue Man and Caboose Supplyman at a daily salary of $9.90 ($8.34 increased due to the 40 Hour Week).
On July 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 18, 25 and August 3, 1949, vacancies occurred on the positions of Stock Clerk due to vacation and other reasons. The position of Stock Clerk pays $10.84 daily and the duties consist of keeping a record of the material under his jurisdiction. The vacancies of the days shown above were worked by B. E. Meadows who was employed by the Carrier on June 7, 1948 and at the time of this claim held Group 2 and Group 3 seniority as of June 7, 1948, but held no Group 1 seniority. During the period of this claim, B. E. Meadows was regularly assigned to the position of Issue Man, Back Room, General Store, at a daily salary of $8.34.
On July 12, 1949, a vacancy occurred on the position of Labor Foreman, rate $10.54 per day, whose duties consisted of supervising Labor Gang loading company material for shipment on line and unloading material from cars
and subsequently secured leave of absence to train as manager of a grocery store. He did not return from leave until August 3, 1948.
Under these circumstances, the Carrier found no reason to decide that the General Storekeeper erred in using Mr. Meadows on the position for which the claim is filed. He, of course, is responsible for proper operation of the Store Department, which includes filling vacancies with employes competent to perform the work. He is in position to judge the qualification of the employes under his supervision. The evidence shows there was substantial basis for his actions in question, and the Carrier clearly would not be justified in interfering with his proper exercise of discretion under such circumstances.
As pointed out above, the claim is not supported by the rule, and is not valid for any reason. The Carrier respectfully requests that it be denied.
OPINION OF BOARD: This case presents the question whether a senior Group 2 employe should have been used in preference to a junior Group 2 employe to fill temporary vacancies in Group 1.
The claim is based on Rule 11-1 ("Temporary Assignments-Short Vacancy") which reads:
Rule 4-1 and 2 ("Promotions, Assignments and Displacements") reads as follows:
The Carrier also contends that its determination of fitness and ability should not be distiyrbed.
FIRST: Rule 11-1 establishes the manner and order in which temporary vacancies are to be filled without bulletining. Neither of the employes involved here was a furloughed or extra employe or an employe holding Group 1 seniority; and so neither could qualify under paragraphs (a) or (b) of the Rule. But no claim is made on behalf of any employ e who might have qualified under paragraphs (a) or (b); and the Carrier did not call any such employe to fill the vacancy in question.
The essence of the claim therefore is that, having reached into the employes covered by paragraph (c) to fill the vacancy, the Carrier was not entitled to select a junior employe in preference to a senior qualified employe in that group who has requested that he be allowed to perform the work. Rule 4-1 and use of the word "advanced" in Rule 11-1 (c) support this claim. This temporary assignment was nonetheless a promotion even though Group 2 and 3 employes would acquire no seniority in Group 1 while filling a temporary unbulletined vacancy (See Rule 3 Interpretation B and note; also Award 5285).
If claimant had sufficient fitness and ability, the claim is good (see Awards 2341, 2490, 4841 and 5604) though others may be senior to claimant (Awards 1646, 4022 and 5266).
The responsibility for the selection of employes and their promotion is the Carrier's; and we should not substitute our judgment based on paper for the Carrier's first hand judgment, except upon a showing of abuse of discretion (Award 5292 and awards cited).
Prior to the time of the claim the junior had worked a total of 14 days in filling short vacancies on Group 1 positions: 4 days as Assistant Stock Clerk, 3 days as Labor Foreman and 7 days as Typist. His regular service was performed as Store Helper, Store Helper and Issueman and Caboose Supplyman. Claimant, on the other hand, had worked a total of 88 days in filling short vacancies in Group 1 positions: 34 days as Assistant Stock Clerk, 1 day as Stock Clerk, 8 days as Third Copy Clerk and 52 days as File Clerk. His regular service was performed as Laborer, Issueman Caboose Supplyman, Store Helper-Iron Rack, Issueman-Back oom, Relief Man and File Clerk.
The record taken as a whole justifies a conclusion that the determination made by the Carrier was based upon comparisons of experience and not upon individual assessment of fitness and ability. We conclude that the junior was assigned because he had experience and because the Carrier considered that the senior was not sufficiently qualified. The essence of the Carrier's determination is contained in its official statement: "the work performed by Mr. Golding (the senior) did not qualify him for the vacancies . . ." 5637-12 44'7