CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE, ST. PAUL AND
PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Joint Council Dining Car Employees Local 385 on the property of Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad Company for and on behalf of Second Cook C. Williams, that he be paid the difference between all time received by W. A. Farrow as second cook, Trains 101-102 and what claimant actually received, account Farrow being awarded position by bid instead of claimant who is the senior employe; said award of bid to Farrow being in violation of Rule 6 of the effective agreement.
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: On January 6, 1956 Carrier issued its Bid No. 50 advertising position of second cook, trains 101-102 (Main Diner). (Employes' Exhibit A). On January 31, 1956 Carrier issued its Award on Bid No. 50 to W. E. Farrow. (Employes' Exhibit B). The award on Bid No. 50 shows that bids were received from claimant and three other employes in addition to the successful bidder.
On January 9, Organization's General Chairman submitted time claim on behalf of claimant on the ground that he was senior qualified employe bidding in response to Bid No. 50. (Employes' Exhibit C). Under date of February 29, 1956 Carrier's Superintendent Sleeping and Dining Car Department impliedly denied claim on the ground that the bid was awarded to the man best qualified. (Employes' Exhibit D).
On March 2, 1956 Organization appealed the decision denying claim to Carrier's Assistant Vice President, the highest officer on the property to consider such appeals. (Employes' Exhibit E.) On March 16, 1956 that official denied the appeal of said claim. (Employes Exhibit F.)
The facts in this time claim are undisputed. Claimant has a seniority date as second cook of June 21, 1948. W. E. Farrow, the employe to whom Bid No. 50 was awarded, has fourth cooks seniority date of January 1, 1956.
The current agreement effective September 1, 1949 is on file with this Board and is incorporated herein by reference as though fully set out. Rule 6 of the effective agreement controls the resolution of this claim. It provides as follows:
Trains 101-102, with which we are here concerned, are high class transcontinental trains and one of the principal features of these trains is the superb service in what is known as the main diner which is for the exclusive use of Pullman Car passengers. Dishes served in the main diner on trains 101-102 are not available on any other dining car operated by this Carrier. Therefore, it can readily be seen that the position of Second Cook in the main diner requires an experienced and highly skilled occupant and it is significant to note that due to the superior service required thereon the Second Cook in the main diner on Trains 101-102 is paid a monthly bonus.
Rule 6 (e) of the agreement in effect at that time between the parties here in dispute read as follows:
Mr. Williams did not possess the qualifications necessary to meet the high standards and requirements of the Second Cook position in the main diner on trains 101-102 and, in accordance with the provisions of Rule 6 (e), particularly that portion we have underscored, he was not assigned. As has been shown, Mr. Williams had had only limited experience as a Second Cook, same being as an extra employe only and even in that capacity his work was only mediocre. He had never held a regular Second Cook assignment. Certainly it cannot be expected of the Carrier to assign an inexperienced employe such as Mr. Williams to a bonus position in a main diner which excells in extraordinary service and which, therefore, requires the services of a fully qualified, experienced and highly skilled cook. The Carrier's first obligation does, after all, lie in providing its passengers with service that is of the highest quality and in the instant case this could not have been accomplished if Mr. Williams were to have been assigned to the position of Second Cook in the main diner on trains 101-102 because as it has conclusively been shown, he was definitely not qualified for same.
It remains the Carrier's position that this claim is barred for reasons as set forth and the Carrier's defense of its action of not assigning Mr. Williams to the position involved should not be construed as a setting aside or waiving of that position.
OPINION OF BOARD: Claim here is that Claimant, Second Cook C. Williams was improperly denied position on Trains 101-102 under an alleged violation of Rule 6 of the controlling Agreement. Carrier contends Claimant was not found to be qualified for the position claimed, viz., Second Cook on its train "City of San Francisco". We can find nothing arbitrary or capricious in the Carrier's determination as to Claimant Williams' lack of qualification. Rule 6 (a) specifies "" * * Management to be the judge as to qualifications". 9818-7 737
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