STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood (GL-6231) that:
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: The Carrier maintains a Freight Sales Department with the principal headquarters located in the Commercial Credit Building, 300 St. Paul Place, Baltimore, Maryland.
On November 23, 1965, advertising bulletin number 549 was posted (see Employes' Exhibit A). Subsequent awarding bulletin number 550 (see Employes' Exhibit B) gave the position to a new employe, Mrs. Margaret Ann Graves.
Three applicants besides Mrs. Graves entered their bid for the position. Messrs. W. A. Wit, C. E. Fennington, Jr. and J. Moody. These employes were from other seniority districts, but each held seniority under the rules agreement.
Immediate protest .was filed by the organization under date of December 15, 1965 and pay was claimed (see Employes' Exhibit C) commencing with December 7, 1965. Under date of December 20, 1965 the Carrier' denied the claim (see Employes' Exhibit D).
Appeal of the declination of the claim was made under date of February 12, 1966 by the organization (see Employes' Exhibit E).
Conference was held with the Carrier for the discussion on the subject and under date of April 21, 1966 the claim was declined in writing (see Employes' Exhibit F).
In the final appeal of the matter to the highest designated officer on the property to receive grievances, it was again denied under date of July 11, 1966 (see Employes' Exhibit G).
1. Copies of agreement in effect between the Carrier and the Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employes effective January 1, 1948 have been filed with the National Railroad Adjustment Board.
2. This case involves an alleged violation of the Clerks' Agreement because of the Carrier not assigning either W. A. Wit, C. E. Fennington, Jr., or J. Moody to the position of Assistant File Clerk in the Sales Department, Baltimore, Maryland.
3. On November 23, 1965, Bulletin No. 549 was posted advertising a vacancy on the position of Assistant File Clerk in the Freight Sales Department on seniority district No. 9. A copy of this bulletin is attached as Carrier's Exhibit A.
4. No applications for this position were received from any employe in seniority district No. 9. Applications were received from the following three employes who were assigned in other seniority districts:
At the time the applications were filed, Mr. Wit was working in the Stores Department where he had a seniority date of July 9, 1965, and Mr. Fennington was working in the Accounting Department and had a seniority date of November 5, 1963 in that district.
5. For reasons which will be explained later none of the claimants was awarded the position in question. It was awarded to Mrs. Margaret A. Graves, a new employe, under assignment Bulletin No. 550 dated December 14, 1965, a copy of which is attached as Carrier's Exhibit B.
OPINION OF BOARD: Effective on December 13, 1965, Carrier assigned Mrs. Graves, until then a non-employe, to fill a bulletined position of Assistant File Clerk in the Baltimore Freight Sales Department. Claimants, all employes
in another seniority district, had properly applied for the position. Organization contends that since all had sufficient fitness and ability for the position, one of the Claimants should have been awarded the position and that Carrier's failure to award it to one of them violated the Agreement.
Carrier contends that Claimants were given the proper consideration under Rule 26 and were properly passed over; Carrier also contends that one intention of the Rule is "to protect the managerial discretion of the employing officer to select the best qualified persons for the position." While we agree that there is managerial discretion, if reasonably exercised, initially to determine sufficiency of fitness and ability and whether the applicant meets the employment standards of the involved seniority district, these prerogatives do not add up to discretion to select the best qualified person.
However, to prove its case, it was necessary for Organization to prove that Claimants, or at least one of them, in addition to being sufficiently fit and able, met the employment standards of the seniority district where the vacancy existed. No such proof is in the record; consequently we must deny the claim.
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