FREIGHT HANDLERS, EXPRESS AND STATION EMPLOYES CHICAGO & EASTERN ILLINOIS RAILROAD COMPANY
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood (GL-5272) that:
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: Effective June 1, 1961 the Carrier moved its Chief Engineer's Office from Danville to Chicago Heights, Illinois and the incumbent of the Chief Clerk position in that office who desired to remain in Danville notified the Carrier that he would displace Claimant A. R. Lines who held the position of Supervisor's Clerk which was to remain in Danville, as of June 19, 1961. Employes Exhibit 1(A)
Claimant Linse was scheduled for vacation June 19 thru July 2nd inclusive and therefore, notified Mr. D. L. Engel, Superintendent of Mechanical Department and Mr. D. L. Cronkhite, Master Car Builder that he desired to displace on position of A.A.R. Clerk in the Master Car Builder's office and due to his vacation which was regularly scheduled, he would not assume duties until July 3, 1961. Employes Exhibit 1(B)
On June 28, 1961, or four days before Claimant was to assume duties of his selected position and while he was still on vacation, Claimant went to the office of the Master Car Builder with the expectation of sitting in on the A.A.R. Clerk position, at no cost to the carrier, to learn the duties of that position. Master Car Builder Cronkhite informed Claimant he could not sit in on the position until after he bad taken an examination to prove he was
There is in effect between the parties hereto, an agreement identified as Schedule No. 2, effective April 22, 1955.
OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant A. R. Linse sought to displace on position of A.A.R. Clerk on July 3, 1961 following his vacation. He was informed of the necessity for taking an examination on the A.A.R. Book of Rules, and took that examination, without the aid of the Rule Book, on July 5, 1961. He was notified of his having failed the examination and being denied the position on July 6, 1961, giving rise to the instant grievance. He was later given an opportunity to displace on the relief position titled Dispatcher's Clerk commencing November 1, 1961, thus creating a cut off date to the original claim. On August 24, 1962, he was offered another opportunity to take the A.A.R. Clerk test, this time using the Rule Book. This offer was rejected by the Claimant, who indicated his satisfaction with his new position.
The Organization contends that Claimant had a right under Rule 7 (a) of the parties Agreement to "* * * thirty working days in which to qualify * * *," and that he was denied the "* * * full cooperation of department heads and other employes in * * * (his) efforts to qualify" (Rule 7 [C]) when the Carrier imposed an examination requiring total memorization of a role book to which he would have had constant access on his position. Additionally, it notes that he was denied the opportunity during his vacation to sit in on the position as a volunteer without compensation, to familiarize himself with the operation.
The Carrier contends that the original test taken by the Claimant was a proper test of his skill and ability; that his failing that examination proved his inability to handle the position; and that the Carrier acted leniently in reopening his rights to a subsequent displacement, and in offering him an additional opportunity to take the test, under more lenient circumstances. In view of these facts, the Carrier concludes that it met its full obligations under the Agreement, and that the claim should be denied.
There is no question that the position of A.A.R. Clerk is a difficult one, demanding familiarity with the governing Book of Rules. Nor is there any question that Claimant, exercising displacement rights under Rule 7 had the right to thirty working days in which to qualify for that position. Carrier .denied the Claimant this right by interposing a written examination, requiring memorization of the Rules, which even it admitted by its later allowance of a second examination using the Rule Book was an excessive requirement for qualification. In view of this and the Carrier's refusal to permit the
Claimant to sit in and observe the operation without cost to it during his vacation, we must conclude that the Carrier acted improperly in interfering with the exercise of Claimant's displacement rights. Accordingly we find that the claim has merit.
FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, 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