NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION Docket Number SG-20378
William M. Edgett, Referee
(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(Missouri Pacific Railroad Company
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of
Railroad Signalmen on the Missouri Pacific Railroad
Company:
On behalf of Signalman E. A. Wuertz for difference between
hourly rate of Signalman and Foreman's rate account being senior bidder
for the Foreman position in Gang No. 104, but not assigned by bulletin.
(Carrier's File: B225-607)
OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant bid on a Foreman position and was the senior
bidder. Carrier issued a notice stating there were
no qualified bidders, re-bulletined the position and assigned it to a
junior man. The organization took issue with the assignment by letter,
and later, on April 8. 1972, filed a claim, citing Rule 500(a), which
reads:
Rule 500
"Promotion: (a) Promotions to positions within
the scope of this agreement shall be based upon ability
and seniority; ability being sufficient, seniority shall
govern.
The ability sufficient for promotion to positions of
Electronic Technician, Retarder Yard Technician or Foreman
shall be determined by an examination given during regular
working hours by the Signal Engineer or his representative
and the General Chairman or his representative. The
examination shall consist of 50 questions from a list of
200 questions previously agreed upon by the Signal Engineer
and the General Chairman. The senior employe who makes a
minimum grade of 80 on the examination will be promoted.
Applicants for positions of Electronic Technicians and
Retarder Yard Technicians must have a Federal Communications Commission license, second class or bet
During the handling of the claim on the property Carrier advised
the General Chairman that Claimant had not requested examination for the
position. The record shows that Carrier did so on December 13, 1972, some
time after the junior man had been placed in the position. Rule 500(a)
Award Number 20521 Page 2
Docket Number SG-20378
does not give Carrier the option of giving or not giving the examination. It also does not give
taking it. As stated in the Rule "the ability sufficient for promotion to positions of
...
or Foreman shall be determined by an examination
...."
It is clear that Claimant should have been given the examination. The Board believes that he sho
If he is successful his claim is sustained. If he is not, his claim is
denied. Should he elect not to take the examination his claim is denied.
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 the claim should be disposed of as stated in the Opinion.
A W A R D
Claim disposed of as stated in Opinion.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division
ATTEST:
i~
Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 22nd day of November 1974.