NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
(Supplemental)
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood (GL-5893) 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 position and the Southern Railway Company.
Both Mr. Camp and Mr. Woodward are carried on Seniority Roster B, office Vice President-Staff, Atlanta, Georgia; Mr. Camp has a seniority date of March 1, 1963; Mr. Woodward has a seniority date of July 16, 1963, Mr. Camp being the senior employe.
On July 22, 1964, a position of Computer Operator was advertised by Vacancy Bulletin No. 5, issued by Mr. J. F. Fraher, Manager, Computer Operations, Atlanta, Georgia. (Employes' Exhibit 1.) Bids were tendered by Mr. L. D. Camp and Mr. R. R'. Woodward, Mr. Camp being senior. Effective July 27, 1964, by Assignment Bulletin No. 5 "B", Mr. Woodward was assigned to the position, the Carrier contending that Mr. Woodward was most qualified. Memorandum Agreements were signed in November, 1956, setting up the Computer Center and providing for special training, schooling and auxiliary instructions in the IBM-705 electronic computer and equipment operations. The following Memorandum of Understanding was entered into by Carrier and its employes represented by the BofRC on July 25, 1957:
The Petitioner contends that in order to comply with the provisions of this Rule, it is enough to establish the fact that the senior applicant has sufficient fitness and ability to be able to perform the work within a reasonable time.
The Carrier argues that the primary rule to be considered is Rule 15, since its provisions are incorporated by reference into Rule 16 and the 1956 Memorandum Agreement. Rule 15 reads as follows:
"RULE 15.
PROMOTION, VACANCIES OR NEW POSITIONS NOT FILLED
BY SENIORITY
(Revised, effective October 1, 1938)
The Carrier contends that in compliance with Rule 15, when qualifications, merit and capacity of the applicants are equal, "then, and only then, will the employes with the greatest seniority be given priority in assignment" Carrier further contends that Claimant's qualifications, etc., never were equal to Woodward's; hence, it was justified in appointing the junior applicant to the position in question.
The evidence of record shows that the Carrier simply did not consider the Claimant to be qualified for the position, and since his qualifications were not equal to Woodward's, the right to assignment by preference based on seniority never matured. Under the rules, seniority alone is not the test to be applied; qualifications, merit and capacity must be established first. The burden of proof in this regard is the Claimant's. Other than the fact that he has worked 11/2 years approximately as a Computing Equipment Operator, we can find no substantive evidence relative to his qualifications in this record. Further, the Claimant's application was given consideration by the Carrier, a final determination having been made that he was not qualified. This decision is final under Rule 15 (see Awards 15387-Dorsey, and 12433-Seff). Additionally, there is no evidence that the Carrier acted in an arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable manner. The converse of this is true. We will accordingly deny the claim.
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