PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

BROTHERHOOD OF RAILWAY AND STEAMSHIP CLERKS, FREIGHT HANDLERS, EXPRESS AND STATION EMPLOYES

UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY

(Northwestern District)


STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employes that:




EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: On July 1st, 1953, the Carrier posted a special Bulletin No. 10 which is provided for under Rule 12 (e) of the Clerks' Agreement, copy of this Bulletin is attached as Exhibit

A". On July 2nd, 1953, Greta Mcshain who held a regular assignment as Train and Enginemen Timekeeper, and had seniority date of November 6th, 1922, made the proper application for the position of Head Train and Enginemen Timekeeper.


On July 2nd, 1953, Leo E. White, who held regular assignment of Train and Enginemen Timekeeper (Vacation Clerk) and whose seniority date was August 30th, 1924, was assigned to the position, and on the same date Supervisor of Wage Schedules, Mr. Sather, wrote reta MeShain, advising her the reason she had not been assigned to the position, copy of letter attached as Exhibit "B". On July 3rd, 1953, Miss MeShain replied to the Supervisor of Wage Schedules, copy of which is attached as Exhibit "C", and on July 7th, 1953 Division Chairman F. W. Madden, wrote the Supervisor of Wage Schedules presenting claim for Miss MeShain, copy of his letter is attached as Exhibit "D" and copy of Supervisor of Wage Schedules Sather's reply is attached as Exhibit "E".


Under date of July 28, 1953, Division Chairman Madden appealed to the Assistant General Chairman for further handling, and on August 7th,



7817-7 229

All information and data contained in this Response to Notice of Ex Parts Submission is a matter of record or is known by the Organization.






OPINION OF BOARD: Claim is here presented in behalf of one Greta MeShain, regularly assigned Train and Engineman Timekeeper, for the difference in the rate of that position and the rate of the position of Head Train and Engineman Timekeeper between July 6 and 17, 1953, inclusive, account of allegedly having been denied opportunity of occupying temporary vacancy in said higher rated position.


The Organization takes the position that the Claimant as the senior employs making application to fill the temporary vacancy was entitled to fill same within the meaning of Rule 12 (a) and (e). It was pointed out that claimant's past experience as a Train and Engineman Timekeeper precludes a finding of lack of necessary ability to perform the duties in question and that her request obviously denied for reasons other than those permissible under the rules, namely because she was a female employe. It was further contended that Rule 8 of the Agreement, here relied upon by the Carrier is a general rule and as such cannot prevail as against Rule 12 (a) and (e) a Special rule.


The Respondent countered with the assertion that it quite properly considered the fitness and ability of claimant as was permissible under Rule 8, and in so doing, found that claimant was not possessed of the required fitness and ability to perform the duties, and was likewise not qualified physically or temperamentally to hold down the temporary vacancy. It was further pointed out that a portion of the work to be performed was located in an isolated building, said location being neither a safe nor a proper place for a female employe to work alone.









7817-8 230




The record is clear that claimant was the senior employe who applied to fill the vacancy in question. Likewise her application was timely. She had held the position of Train and Enginemen Timekeeper for a number of years and was evidently acquainted with the work requirements of the higher rated position.

There is no noted exception contained in Rule 12 (e) that permits the assignment of any employe other than senior qualified employes making application for a vacancy within the specified time. There is no distinction contained in this or any other applicable rule between male and female employes.

We conclude that claimant's disqualification here was based primarily if not exclusively on the fact that claimant was a woman. This is evidenced by A. Sather's communication to claimant which reads as follows:










as well as the subsequent denial by the Vice President during subsequent handling on the property.
7817-9 231

It is noted that in neither instance was the question of claimant's basic qualifications raised. Likewise it is noted that claimant had, at other times, worked in this facility. The question of isolation of, and lak of heat in the facility had nothing to do with either claimant's abiity or the application of Rule 12 (e) the controlling rule here.


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


    That the Carrier violated the effective agreement.


                  AWARD


    Claims 1 and 2 sustained.


              NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD By Order of THIRD DIVISION


              ATTEST: A. Ivan Tummon

              Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 22nd day of April, 1957.