NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION Docket Number SG-19629
(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(Union Pacific Railroad Company
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of Railroad
Signalmen on the I;,rion Pacific Pailroad Company that:
(a) The Union Pacific Railroad Company violated the current Agreement,
dated April 1, 1962, and namely the "Note." under Rule .'. and
Rulc
36, when it
assigned Mr. C. D. Chidley to the positiuit of Signal Tnspector instead of Mr,
Johnson.
(b) Mr. N. J. Johnson shall be compensated for the difference between
his rate of pay as a CTC Maintainer and the rate of pay of a Signal Inspectur,
effective with the date of the assignment of Mr. Ch idley, .July 13, 1970, on
Assignment Bulletin No. 6A and continuing; for so long as ttic violation exists.
(Carrier's File: A-10425)
OPINION
OF BOARD; Claimant alleges Carrier violated the current Agreement, dateJ
April 1, 1962, and particularly the "Note" under Rule 2, ani
Rule 36, when it assigned Mr. G. D. Chidley t.o the position of Signal Inspect
instead of Claimant, N.J. Johnson.
The facts are that bids were received for this assignment from several
persons. Among them were:
Wyoming Division Signal C.T.C. Malr,taincr N, .T. Johnson, who
had Class 1 seniority date of January 1, 1944, on old Coloradu
Seniority District No. 4.
Kansas Division Signal Maintainer G., D. Chidley, who had Class
1 seniority date of November 7, 1945, on old 1.'olorado Scniurity
District No. 4. '
This position of Signal Inspector was assigned to C. D. Chidley, an
employee admittedly junior to claimant N. J. Johnson. Claimant entered a protest
and filed this claim alleging that Carrier failed to give "due consideration for
seniority, fitness and abilit·.·" in making this assignment.
Claimant further alleges that Carrier's action in this instance has been
"arbitrary, capricious, discretionary ....(and) in bad faith."
Award Number 19891 Page 2
Docket Number SG-19629
The Board does not feel these allegations by Claimant are sustained
by the record.
We feel that Carrier had the right to determine the fitness and
ability of Claimant to serve as a Signal Inspector (Award No. 18943 and cases
cited therein); that petitioner has not satisfied the burden of proof required
that Claimant was qualified (Award No. 18347), and that rules governing seniority
cannot be applied irrespective of fitness and ability (Awards No. 96, No. 8198,
and many others).
The Board is of the opinion that Carrier acted in good faith, without
bias or prejudice, and has not violated any of the Agreements.
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 parties waived oral hearing;
That the Carrier and the Employes involved in this dispute are
respectively Carrier and PFmployes 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 the Agreement was not violated.
A W A R·D-
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division
ATTEST: ~'~'~ci
Executive Secretary _
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 8th day of August 1973.