OW-365
Award No. 18347
Docket No. SG-18483
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
John H. Dorsey, Referee
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
BROTHERHOOD OF RAILROAD SIGNALMEN
SEABOARD COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of the
Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen on the Seaboard
Coast Line Railroad
Company that:
(a) That the Seaboard Coast Line Railroad violated and continues to violate its current Agreement with its Signal Department
Employes by denying Assistant Signalmen T. W. Keen and G. B.
Goodwin Signalmen's positions in Signal Gang No. 6 covered by
Bulletin No. 56 dated July 22, 1968.
(b) That the Railroad therefore allow Messrs. Keen and Goodwin compensation equal to what they would have earned on the
Signalmen's assignments in addition to compensation actually earned
far the period of time they are denied the positions, plus necessary
expenses.
[Carrier's File: 15-40:15-7]
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: On July 22, 1968, the Railroad
issued Bulletin No. 56 (Brotherhood's Exhibit No. 1) advertising seven positions for bids; among them were two positions of Signalmen, Gang No. 6
(Items Nos. 1 and 3). Assistant Signalman T. W. Keen entered as his first
choice a bid on the Signalma,n's position identified as Item No. 1; Assistant
Signalman G. B. Goodwin entered as his first choice a bid on the Signalman's
position identified as Item No. 3. In both cases the bids wer^ dated July 30,
1968.
On August 5, 1968, the Railroad issued Bulletin No. 57 (Brotherhood's
Exhibit No. 2) identifying the employes to whom the positions advertised in
Bulletin No. .56 had been awarded. No awards were made in five of the positions, including Items Nos. 1 and 3, it being contended that there were "no
qualified bids."
There is an agreement in effect between the parties to this dispute
bearing an effective date of July 1, 1967, as amended, which is by reference
made a part of the record in this dispute, which provides in part as follows:
affected employes by such official notification that they were not
qualified bidders. Mr. Anderson stated he had noted that subsequent
to this case bulletins had been issued simply cancelling advertisements without any notation about no qualified bids. It was agreed
this was a good practice and that it would be continued in such cases.
Mr. Dick gained the impression from Mr. Anderson that the KeenGoodwin claim would not be further progressed.
In view of the above I see no need for a further conference discussion of the matter as suggested by you.
While 1 cannot see where there is any dispute involved in the
Keen-Goodwin claim that requires submission to the Third Division,
since you have requested an extension of time until January 1, 1970
to permit of such handling the same is hereby granted."
GEN. CHAIRMAN TO ASST. VICE PRES.-PERSONNEL,
SEPTEMBER 2, 1969
"Please be referred to your letter of February 28, 1969, concerning
our claim in behalf of Assistant Signalmen Keen and Goodwin account their not being; awarded advertised positions of Signalmen on
which they had bid.
In the second paragraph of your letter you stated that it had
been agreed that the present practice of simply cancelling the advertisements covering positions Signalmen-Signal Maintainers when
there are no qualified bidders therefor rather than issuing bulletins
with notation `no qualified bids' was good, and such practice will be
continued in such cases.
It should be clearly understood that there was no agreement on
the part of the undersigned to abrogate or mitigate any part of the
written agreement between this Brotherhood and The Seaboard Coast
Line Railroad."
OPINION OF BOARD:
Claimants, Assistant Signalmen in their first of
eight periods of training (Rule 7(b), infra), each applied-and was the sole
applicant-for separate positions of Signalmen bulletined July 22, 1968.
By bulletin dated August 5, 1968, the bid of each Claimant was rejected for
the given reason "NO QUALIFIED BIDS." Petitioner, citing Rule 7(b), contends that each Claimant was contractually entitled to promotion to the
bulletined position, for which he filed applications, for a period of 65 days in
which to demonstrate his qualification to perform the duties of Signalman.
The following Rules, with emphasis supplied, are pertinent to the resolution of the issue:
"RULE 7.
ASSISTANT SIGNALMAN -ASSISTANT SIGNAL MAINTAINER
(a)
An employe in training for a position of signalman or signal
maintainer, working with and under the direction of a signalman or
signal maintainer, shall be classified as an assistant signalman or
18347 8
assistant signal maintainer. He shall have common headquarters with
the signalman or signal maintainer under whom working.
(b) The
basic training for assistants shall consist of eight periods of 130 eight-hour days of service each, overtime excluded.
Assistants shall have the right to promotion in the order of their
seniority if a position is open and they can qualify in less than their
eight periods. If an employe so promoted fails to meet the requirements of the position at the expiration of 65 eight-hour days, he will
exercise seniority in the assistant's class in order to secure the necessary training and experience to complete his apprenticeship. Men
returning to the assistant class hereunder forfeit all seniority in the
higher class or classes.
RULE 0.
SIGNALMAN -SIGNAL MAINTAINER
An employe assigned to perform work generally recognized as
signal work shall be classified as a signalman or signal maintainer.
Signal work referred to herein includes the construction, installation,
maintenance and repair work as covered in Rule 1 (Scope) of this
agreement.
RULE 1. SCOPE
This agreement governs the rates of pay, hours of service and
working conditions of all employes specified in Rules 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7,
and 8, engaged in the construction, installation, inspecting-, testing,
maintenance and repair, either in signal shops or in the field of all
signalling, recognized signalling systems, interlocking plants, traffic
control systems, wayside cab signals or apparatus, wayside train
stop and train control systems, highway crossing protection devices,
spring switch mechanisms when protected by signals, train order
signals, car retarder systems (except track work in connection therewith), bonding of track, together with all appurtenances, devices, anparatus and equipment necessary to said systems and deviceF·, as
named herein, as well as any other work generally recognirc:l as
signal work.
No employe other than those classified herein will he required or
permitted to perform any of the work covered by the scone of this
agreement."
A Signalman is a journeyman (Rules 6 and 1). An Assistant. Signalman
is an apprentice engaged in a course of training with the objective of qualifying for promotion to Signalman when a vacancy occurs in that classification
(Rule 7(a) and (b)). The parties have agreed that in the ordinary course
successful completion of an "eight periods of 130 eight-hour days of service
each" as an Assistant Signalman is a prerequisite to qualification for Signalman. Neither party has standing to state otherwise before this or any other
forum. But, there is one agreed upon exception prescribed in the second
sentence of Rule 7(b):
18347 9
"Assistants shall have the right to promotion in the order of
their seniority if a position is open
and they can qualify in less than
their eight periods."
Under this provision it is Carrier's prerogative to first exercise its
judgment as to whether an employe is qualified or not for promotion before he
has successfully completed his basic training. Should Carrier's decisionwhether it be "qualified" or "not qualified"-be challenged, the burden of
proof that it is contrary to fact is borne by the challenger.
Petitioner herein has not satisfied its burden of proof that Claimants were
qualified by substantial factual evidence of probative value. We, therefore, will
deny the Claim.
The third sentence of Rule 7(b), supra, is applicable only after an employe
is "promoted" as provided for in the preceding sentence. Since Claimants were
not "so promoted" it is not relevant in our resolution of the Claim.
FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the
whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:
That the parties waived oral hearing;
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
That Carrier did not violate the Agreement.
AWARD
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of THIRD DIVISION
ATTEST: S. H. Schulty
Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 17th day of December 1970.
Keenan Printing Co., Chicago, 111. Printed in ! ~.S.A.
18347 10