NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
BROTHERHOOD OF RAILWAY, AIRLINE AND STEAMSHIP
CLERKS, FREIGHT HANDLERS, EXPRESS AND STATION
EMPLOYES
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood (GL-6589) that:
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: On November 7, 1967, Carrier issued Bulletin No. 87 advertising a temporary vacancy in the position of Assistant Bill and Voucher Clerk No. 187 and on November 13, 1967 awarded this position to Mrs. C. J. Strauser, an employe junior to Mr. Yeager. Employes' Exhibits 1(a) and 1(b).
Again on November 20, 1967, in Carrier's Bulletin No. 92, the position of Assistant Bill and Voucher Clerk No. 190 was advertised and again Carrier awarded the position to Mrs. Strauser, an employe junior to Mr. Yeager. Employes' Exhibits 1(c) and 1(d). Mr. Yeager's seniority date is June 13, 1966 and Mrs. Strauser has seniority from September 2, 1966.
The record indicates that the Carrier quite clearly chose the most experienced employe for the vacancies, and totally ignored the Agreement requirements. There is nothing offered by Carrier in the way of probative evidence to indicate that Mr. Yeager did not have sufficient fitness and ability to perform the duties of the positions. It is true that he lacked actual on-the-job experience in some of the duties of the positions, but the record further indicates (Employes' Exhibit 2(d)) that he had been studying the manual in regard to the ICC Uniform System of Accounts and that he is further a well-educated individual and is presently attending college working toward his Master's Degree, having already earned a Bachelor of
On November 13, 1967 the position in question was awarded to C. Strauser (Exhibit 3).
Secondly, on November 20, 1967, the office of Controller issued Bulletin No. 92 advertising a military vacancy on Assistant Bill and Voucher Clerk Position No. 190, also in the office of Auditor-Disbursements. (See Exhibit 4.)
The character of work described in this bulletin was the same as the work described in the bulletin advertising Position No. 187.
Nine individual employes applied for Assistant Bill and Voucher Clerk Position No. 190 as follows:
On March 27, 1967 the position was question was awarded to C. Strauser. (See Exhibit 6.)
On April 8, 1968, C. Strauser was displaced from Position No. 190 by an employe senior to both Strauser and Claimant Yeager (see Exhibit 7). C. Strauser then exercised seniority displacement rights on Comptometer Position No. 198 (see Exhibit 8).
Petitioner takes the position that Claimant B. L. Yeager should have been assigned to each position, and hence this dispute.
On November 7, 1967, Carrier issued Bulletin No. 87 advertising a temporary vacancy in Position No. 187-Assistant Bill and Voucher Clerk. On November 11, 13, 1967, the vacancy was awarded to Mrs. Strauser an employe junior to Claimant. Her seniority date was September 2, 1966.
On November 20, 1967, Carrier issued Bulletin No. 92 for position No. 190: Assistant Bill and Voucher Clerk. Claimant also applied for this position which became vacant because the occupant was going on maternity leave. On November 27, 1967, Carrier awarded the position to Mrs. Strauser.
It is Petitioner's position that both of the above referred to positions should have been awarded to Claimant because of his being senior to the successful applicant.
The recitation of "Character of Work" in both Bulletins Nos. 87 and 92 is identical. The concluding paragraph in each reads:
With Rules identical to Rule 7 of the Agreement before us we have long held that the determination of "fitness and ability being sufficient" is in the first instance reserved to a carrier. The Carrier's determination is a rebuttal presumption; but, the burden that Carrier wrongfully exercised its judgment, when questioned, is vested in Petitioner.
In the instant case Petitioner has failed to introduce any evidence that Claimant possessed, at the time the Bulletins were posted and before awards were made pursuant to said Bulletins, that Claimant did in fact possess at that time the indispensable condition precedent of "fitness and ability" to qualify him to perform the prescribed functions of the positions. Consequently, under the Agreement, his seniority carried no weight in the posture of this case. We, therefore, 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, 1984;
That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and