BROTHERHOOD OF RAILWAY AND STEAMSHIP CLERKS, FREIGHT HANDLERS, EXPRESS AND STATION EMPLOYES
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: Claimant, Mrs. J. L. Burks, whose service age in the Carrier's General Freight Office, Atlanta, Georgia, dates from October 26, 1942, on April 20, 1954, made verbal application for vacant position of Secretary to Assistant General Freight Agent, Mr. M. F. Dukes. This application was confirmed in writing on the same date. (Employes' Exhibit "A".) Mr. Baker, Chief Clerk, whose duty is to assign applicants to vacant positions, was again addressed in writing by Claimant, Mrs. Burks, on April 29, 1954 (Employes' Exhibit "B")-
Receiving no reply to her communications, Claimant, Mrs. Burks, on May 2, 1954, referred the matter to Division Chairman, Mr. Chapman (Employes, Exhibit "C"). The Division Chairman, under date of May 3, 1954, requested hearing in the matter of Claimant, Mrs. Burks' disqualification in line with "Procedure for Determining Employes' Qualifications". The Division Chairman's request went unanswered, and was repeated under date of May 14, 1954 (Employes' Exhibit "E").
The Division Chairman again traced the General Freight Agent for reply on July 7, 1954 (Employes' Exhibit "F").
for compensation for all monetary loss sustained by reason of failure of Carrier to give proper consideration to application of claimant for such position.
The position involved here is an excepted position and the filling of a vacancy is subject to the provisions of Rule 15, of the effective Agreement between the parties. Such positions are not filled by seniority but on the basis of equality of qualifications, merit and capacity as between employes entitled to consideration. See Note 3-Rule 15.
The facts of record show that a vacancy existed in the position as alleged by Mrs. J. L. Burks, the claimant named herein. Mrs. Burks made verbal application of the position and was advised, prior to the filling of the vacancy, that it was the policy of Carrier to fill the position with a male secretary. The position later was awarded to a male employe. It will be noted that Rule 15 provides also that in addition to qualifications, the appointing officer shall be the judge in making the appointment, subject to appeal to the highest officer designated by the Carrier to whom appeals may be made, whose decision shall be final.
Under the provisions of Rule 15 of the agreement before us, and a thorough review of the record, we must conclude that Carrier has in no way abused its discretion in awarding the position nor is there any evidence Carrier acted arbitrarily in appointing a male to the position. Such requirement was made known to claimant before the position was awarded, and certainly is a requirement that Carrier may reasonably insist upon. Under the provisions of Rule 15, Carrier has the prerogative to require definite and specific qualifiications which in the case here claimant could not meet.
The rule on which the Organization relies is clear and in no way ambiguous but this Board has no authority to substitute its judgment for that of 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 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 .