NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
BROTHERHOOD OF RAILWAY AND STEAMSHIP CLERKS, FREIGHT HANDLERS, EXPRESS AND STATION EMPLOYES
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the Terminal Board of Adjustment, Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Ex press and Station Employes that-
(1) The Carrier violated and continues to violate rules of the current Working Agreement between the above named parties by failing and refusing to assign Mr. Robert Reany, Delivery Man, Brooklyn Store, to position of Clerk, Stationery Department.
(2) Mr. Robert Reany be assigned to position of Clerk, Stationery Department, and that he be paid the difference between $13.17 and $12.13 from and after December 11, 1951, plus such wage increases as might be effective.
EMPLOYEES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: on December 4, 1951, Purchasing Agent H. A. Smith issued Bulletin No. 401 advertising for bid, a clerical position in the Stationery Department (see employes exhibit 1). On December 11, 1951, Bulletin No. 401-A was issued, awarding the position to Alvin E. Huff (employes exhibit 2).
No bids were received from any of the employes holding seniority in Group 1 of the Stores Department, however, four (4) employes holding seniority in Group 2 filed applications for the position under Rule 18 of the Working Agreement. These employes being:
In the instant claim, Mr. Reany had filed application for the position in Group 1, under Rule 18, and by referring to Rule 7, he was entitled to the position in line with his seniority. The Awards mentioned in Award #5637 further sustained our claim.
It is hereby affirmed that all data herein contained in support of claimant's position has been submitted in substance to the Management.
CARRIER'S STATEMENT OF FACTS: The employes under the jurisdiction of the Purchasing Agent and the General Storekeeper have system seniority, divided into three separate and distinct groups, Group 1 covering clerks and allied positions, Group 2, other office, store and station positions, and Group 3, laborers in and around stations and warehouses.
On December 4, 1951, a Group 1 position, involving clerical work and typing, was advertised but no bids were received from employes holding seniority in Group 1.
Applications for the position were filed by the following employes holding Group 2 seniority:
POSITION OF CARRIER: Rule 18, under which the applications of the Group 2 employes were filed, does not carry any requirement necessitating selection on a seniority basis. It simply provides that employes will be given preference over non-employes. Inasmuch as we assigned the position to one of the Group 2 employes makinp application, we complied with the rule.
There is no basis for the claim on behalf of Mr. Robert Reany, which should be denied.
All data submitted in support of Carrier's position has been presented to the duly authorized representative of the Employes and made a part of the particular question in dispute.
OPINION OF BOARD: Carrier bulletined a vacant Group 1 position. No bids were received from employes holding seniority in Group 1. Four employes holding seniority in Group 2 in the same seniority district filed applications for the job and it was filled by one of such applicants with less seniority than the Claimant. It is claimed that such action was a violation of Rule 7, which provides:
It is the position of the Carrier that its action was in accord with Rule 18 and that it had no obligation thereunder to consider the seniority of the applicants. It will be observed that Rule 7 is a general rule establishing the criteria for promotions, assignments and displacements made under other rules. Rule 4(c) establishes certain seniority datum for "employes promoted from one seniority group to another, within the same seniority district," so some movements from one group to another in the same district are clearly recognized as promotions.
We think that where a movement from one group to another in the same seniority district is a promotion, and where more than one employe of the same group has filed an application under Rule 18, that Rule 7 governs the selection of the employe to be promoted. There being no question on this record as to Claimant's fitness and ability, the claim is valid.
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 Employe involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and Employe 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