BROTHERHOOD OF RAILWAY, AIRLINE AND STEAMSHIP
CLERKS, FREIGHT HANDLERS, EXPRESS AND STATION
EMPLOYES
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood (GIa-6972) that:
(1) Carrier violated the Clerks' Agre^ment when it failed to :award and assign tlh,e position of Rate 3i Billing Clerk, #27650002, at Newton Fells, Ohio to Mr. A. S. Fabian effective August 16, 1969, and that
(2) Mr. A. S. Fabian shall be allowed overtime wages fox all work pcrfarmad outside the assigned hours and on rest days o£ position #27550002 on Saturday, August 15, Sunday, August 17, Monday, August 18, Thursday, August 21, Friday, August 22, 1969, and all subseauent dates, Thursdays through Mondays, until he is assigned to the position.
EMP'LOXES' STATEMENT OF F.XC'1S: On March 25, 1969, Mr. A. S. Fabian displaced ,onto position of Rate and Billing Clerk, X27650002, at Newton Falls, Ohio, and worked said posi'._'_on fox a period of approximately 2y re-eAablishad and advertised foz~ bids (see Exhibit #1), and Mr. Fabian then exe2·cised displacement rights onto position of Yard Clerk at Haselton, Ohio. On August X, 1959, position of Rate and Billing Clerk, ,1`27650002, was re-established and advertised for bids (see E hibit ~,`E1), and Mr. Fabian submitted application for his former position, but the position was awarded to an employe junior in seniority to Mr. Fabian (see Exhibit #2).
Duo to the junior employe bidding off the position, it was again advertised for bids on August 22, 1969 (see Exhibit #3). Again, Mr, Fabian submitted application and again the position was awarded to another junior employs (see Exhibit #4).
Claim was properly initiated with Superintendent Huber by Division Chairman Sarlouis as follows:
The Clerks Committee wishes to present to you a time claim in behalf of Mr. A. S. Fabian - Y aid Cler k - Haseltou, Ohio. ID # 1100117.
Claimant had previously been assigned to the Rate and Bill Clerk position apt Newton Falls, Ohio, from March 25, 1969 to June 12, 1969, prior to the abolition of such position on the larl_-ter date and, during that period of time, had unequivocally demonstrated his inability to properly perform the. duties of that position.
As a result of the inability of claimant to properly perform the duties of the hate and Bill Clerk position during the some 58 working days that occurred between March 25, 1969 and June 12, 1969, the Carrier assigned another applicant, Mr. Gary V. Price, a junior clerical employe to that position.
The Carrier has considerable medical, as well as other evidence, to further substantiate its position that claimant does not possess sufficient fitness and ability and/or adequate fitness and ability, as stipulated and required by provisions of Rube 80 in applicable agreen:;xzt., so as to be qualified to properly perform ahe duties of the position of Rate and Bill Clerk at Newton Palls, Ohio.
The -evidence, applicable zwle and findizagw in Board Awards substantiate the position of the Carrier and, accordingly, the claim is invalid and should be decline~;l.
OPINION Of BOARD: The poition of Rate and Bill Clerk at Newton Falls, Ohio was re-established and advertised by Carrier by bulletin on August J., 1969 and Claimant was the ;eniar applicant. Carrier concluded, however, that Claimant ,did not possess sufficient fitness and ability as required by Rule 30 of tha applicable Agreement, and thus Carrier did not assign Claimant to the position. Rather, it assdgm&d a junior clerical employe to the position on August 14, 1969.
Carrier :pz·e,mise.3 its d^termination of fitness and ability an the evaluatien of three 1VI2dical Doctors who examined Claimant and found him to have a mental condition that interfered with the proper performance of his duties. Furthermore, during the 58-day period when he vas previously assign-ad to the position in question, Claimant's work was wholly unsatisfactory-, and Carrier's Agent there was forced to perform a portion of Claimant's Work.
IN'hethe): an employe pcsse_.::~s -ia:ficient fitness and ability for a position within the meaning of Rule 30 is a matter for Carrier to deterznhne and such a determination once made will be sustained by this Board unless it appears that Carrier acted arbitrary or capricious in its determination. Once Carrier has determined that Claimant lacks sufficient fitness and ability, Petitioner has the burden of coming foz~ward with evidence of probative value to support its contention as to fitness and ability.
Petitioner has failed to sustain this burden. We believe that Carrier's decision was made in good faith upon sufficient supporting evidence, and its