NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
Francis X. Quinn, Referee
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: The claimant entered the Carrier's service as a track laborer on February 11, 1957. In addition to his seniority as a track laborer, he has established and holds seniority within the Scales and Work Equipment Subdepartment, Gary Division, dating from June, 1962.
During April, 1964, the claimant submitted an application for a motor car repairman's position advertised within Bulletin 3339. Even though he was the only applicant for the position, the Carrier refused to assign him thereto. He was advised by Supervisor Riegel he was not then and never would be qualified as a motor car repairman. The Employes protested the Carrier's pre-judgement of the claimant's ability to perform the work and contended that he should have been assigned thereto and afforded an opportunity to qualify in accordance with the provisions of the Agreement. The Carrier contended that when it gave the claimant the Wonderlic Mental Ability Test, he had not attained a score high enough to warrant a promotion. The dispute was subsequently adjudicated by this Board and the Employes' position was sustained when, in Award 15586 (House), it was held that the Carrier's action had been "unreasonable and arbitrary". In compliance with the Board's order to "make effective Award No. 15586 . . . on or before July 16, 1967," the Carrier reimbursed the claimant for the monetary loss he had suffered and, by bulletin dated June 14, 1967, assigned him to the motor car repairman's position.
The claimant's scheduled vacation prevented him from assuming the duties of this position until July 3, 1967, at which time Assistant Supervisor Carter advised him not to buy any tools with the intentions of being a motor car repairman.
Also incorporated by reference into this Statement of Facts are the public records underlying Third Division Awards Nos. 14320, 15586, 16157 and 16158.
Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes Schedule Revised and Reissued August 1,1952:
OPINION OF BOARD: The instant dispute involves the disqualification of a garage serviceman seeking promotion to the position of a motor car repairman under the controlling Agreement.
It is the contention of the Organization that Claimant was not afforded a fair and just opportunity to qualify for the motor car repairman position in the face of the underlying circumstances upon which he acquired the position, nor was he afforded a realistic and reasonable judgement of his work during his qualifying period.
It is the contention of the Carrier that Claimant was afforded full opportunity to show his capabilities as a motor car repairman during the qualifying period and failed.
Upon consideration of testimony presented, exhibits introduced, briefs submitted and the Agreement between Elgin, Joliet and Eastern Railway Company and the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes it is clear that the Carrier has reserved to itself the right to be the judge of ability, subject to appeal. Employes awarded bulletined positions are allowed sixty (60) calendar days in which to qualify for such positions and failing to do so have the right to return to their former positions without loss of seniority.
Previous awards of this Board have not supported every decision of management merely because it was an exercise of managerial judgement. When managerial judgement is challenged, it is the obligation of management to supply the evidence by which this Board can decide if that judgement was proper.
This case comes to this Board with hinted echoes of discrimination and prejudgement. Our study of the record does not indicate that the disqualification of the Claimant was discriminatory or prejudiced.
Whether the Claimant possesses sufficient ability as a motor care repairman is a matter for the Carrier to determine and such an evaluation will be sustained unless it appears that the action was capricious or arbitrary. In the instant case the Organization has not proven that the action of the Carrier was arbitrary or capricious or unjusitfied or improper. Since we find that Carrier's complained of action was not unjustified or improper, we will 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