NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION Docket Number SG-20951
William M. Edgett, Referee
(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(Robert W. Blanchette, Richard C. Bond and John H.
( McArthur, Trustees of the Property of
( Penn Central Transportation Company, Debtor
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen o
System Docket 651
Eastern Region - Philadelphia Division Case No. 135
(a) Claim that the Company violated Article 4, Section 6, 7, 8 and
20(a), Article 8, Sections 3 and 4; and Article IV, Section 1 of the Agreement
of February 7, 1965, when it notified George B. Carter, Foreman C&S, under date
of October 16, 1967 that he was disqualified as Foreman C&S, effective October
16, 1967, and forced to exercise his seniority within ten (10) days in a lower
class.
(b) Claim that George B. Carter, Foreman C&S, be paid the difference
between the rate of Maintainer C&S-Test, the position he was forced to exercise
seniority to, and the rate of Foreman C&S, for each and every work day commencing with October 1
in Claim (a) above.
OPINION
OF BOARD: The parties to this dispute have jointly stated the per
tinent facts to be that on October 16, 1967 a meeting was
set up by Carrier's Assistant Supervisor, C&S, with Claimant and his Union
Representative to reevaluate Claimant's position (Foreman, C&S) in accordance
with Article 8, Section 3(a) of their Agreement. Claimant declined to take
qualification test.
The Petitioner contends that the Carrier's conduct violated Articles
4 and 8 of their June 1, 1943 Agreement and Article IV of their February 7,
1965 Agreement. The Carrier counters that it has the right under Agreement
Article 8, Section 3(a), to require its employes to submit to an examination
or re-examination of their qualifications for their positions. The Carrier
also requests that we hold the present claim to be barred because of a delay
in its progress caused by the Employes.
In the matter of timely handling, we are constrained to frown upon
dilatory handling, but in the light of our decision on the merit of this dispute we do not find that
Award
Number 21103
Page 2
Docket Number SG-20951
We have carefully considered the Agreement provisions relied upon
by the petitioning Employes, and we find that in the light of the record
presented in this case Carrier's right to re-examine the Claimant must be
upheld. However, it appears from the record that the Claimant did not con&der himself obligated
to do so was based on that understanding. Hence, we find and direct that
Claimant shall again be afforded an opportunity to take the examinations
as provided in Article 8, Section 3(a). Inasmuch as any pay lose suffered
by the Claimant was because of his own act, claim for such loss 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 Agreement was not violated.
A W A R D
Claim disposed of in line with Opinion and Findings.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division
ATTEST:
Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 29th day of June 1976.