BROTHERHOOD OF RAILWAY AND STEAMSHIP CLERKS, FREIGHT HANDLERS, EXPRESS AND STATION EMPLOYES
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood (GL-5578) that:
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: This dispute is between the Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employes as the representative of the class or craft of employes in which the Claimant in this case held a position and the Pennsylvania Railroad Company-hereinafter referred to as the Brotherhood and the Carrier, respectively.
There is in effect a Rules Agreement, effective May 1, 1942, except as amended, covering Clerical, Other Office, Station and Storehouse Employes between the Carrier and this Brotherhood which the Carrier has filed with the National Mediation Board in accordance with Section 5, Third (e), of the Railway Labor Act, and also with the National Railroad Adjustment Board. This Rules Agreement will be considered a part of this Statement of Facts. Various Rules thereof may be referred to herein from time to time without quoting in full.
For approximately eighteen years prior to June 22, 1961, Miss Mary M. Kerr was the incumbent of regular positions of Telephone Switchboard Operator at various locations including Steubenville, Ohio and Conway Yard, Pa. She has a seniority date of January 14, 1943, on the seniority roster of the Pittsburgh Region in Group 2.
The Carrier has shown that the evidence of record in this case is more than enough to sustain its determination that Claimant did not possess the necessary fitness and ability to perform the work of a Switchboard Operator at the Pittsburgh Telephone Exchange, and that she properly was not awarded such position in conformity with the applicable rules of the Clerks' Agreement. It also has shown that the Employes have failed to submit the necessary proof to overcome the Carrier's determination regarding Claimant's lack of qualifications or to show that its action in refusing to award the position was in any way malicious or discriminatory. Therefere, the Carrier's decision in the matter must be final (Award 6178), and it is respectfully submitted that your Honorable Board cannot properly substitute its judgment for that of the Carrier or otherwise disturb the action taken.
It is respectfully submitted that the National Railroad Adjustment Board, Third Division, is required to give effect to the said Agreement and to decide the present dispute in accordance therewith.
The Railway Labor Act, in Section 3, First, subsection (i), confers upon the National Railroad Adjustment Board the power to hear and determine disputes growing out of "grievances or out of the interpretation or application of agreements concerning rates of pay, rules and working conditions." The National Railroad Adjustment Board is empowered only to decide the said dispute in accordance with the Agreement between the parties to it. To grant the claim of the Employes in this case would require the Board to disregard the Agreement between the parties thereto and impose upon the Carrier conditions of employment and obligations with reference thereto not agreed upon by the parties to this dispute. The Board has no jurisdiction or authority to take such action.
The Carrier has shown that the Claimant lacked the fitness and ability necessary under Rule 2-A-2(a), to perform the duties of the position she sought; therefore, she properly was passed around without violating the provisions of Rule 2-A-2(a). Accordingly the 'Carrier respectfully requests your Honorable Board to deny the claim of the Employes in its entirety.
OPINION OF BOARD: On June 13, 1961, a permanent position of telephone switchboard operator at Pennsylvania Station in Pittsburgh was bulie- 14011-17 623
We cannot substitute our judgment for that of Carrier's. Our function is limited to a review of the Carrier's decision to ascertain whether it was made in good faith upon sufficient supporting evidence. Here the Carrier determined that Claimant lacked the qualifiications to satisfactorily perform the work involved. Petitioner has not proven that Claimant possessed the necessary knowledge and qualifications as to permit seniority to prevail nor has Petitioner established that the action of the Carrier was arbitrary, capricious or designed to circumvent the Agreement."