NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT HOARD
THIRD DIVISION Docket Number
MW-21054
(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(Southern Pacific Transportation Company
( (Pacific Lines)
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood
that:
(1) The Agreement was violated when the position of Assistant
Water Service Foreman advertised in Bulletin No.
560
dated May 11,
1972
was awarded to an applicant who
(a) was junior to applicant R. L. Bolin;
(b) had not furnished a copy of his application
to the Division Chairman. (System File
Mofw 148-342).
(2)
Claimant R. L. Bolin now be
(a) assigned to the position of Assistant Foreman
on WS&F Gang No.
3,
Los Angeles;
(b) given a seniority date of Assistant Water Service
Foreman as of the date junior applicant McDaniel
was assigned to the position in question;
(c) compensated the difference in the rate of his position
and rate of Assistant Foreman as of the date McDaniel
first received the rate of pay of Assistant Foreman.
Water Service Sub-Department and all subsequent days
thereto.
OPINION OF HOARD: Under Rule 5(a) of the Agreement
"7Is
eniority of
employes in all sub-departments shall be shown py
classes and each-occupation shall constitute a class." Seniority in all
classes (except laborers and helpers) begins as of the date the employe
is assigned by assignment notice to the class or as of the date that he
qualifies for a class under the provisions of Agreement Rule
8.
Rule
7
defines promotions as "advancement from a lower class to a higher class.
Subject to the applicable qualification requirements set forth in Rule
8, promotions will be based on seniority."
Award Number 21573 Page 2
Docket Number MW-21054
None of the seven employes who entered applications in response
to the May 1, 1972 posting of a vacancy in Position No. 1, Assistant
Foreman, Water Service and Fuel Gang No. 3 at Los Angeles held seniority
in the class involved (seniority Class No. 2). Although Claimant Bolin
was among the bidders, Carrier selected another bidder--G. R. McDaniel-who was junior to claimant as
No. 7). Claimant thereafter filed the subject claim.
Carrier states it considered claimant unqualified for the
subject position. Since Carrier bears a heavy responsibility to the
public and its employes for safe and efficient operation, we are normally
loath to disturb its judgment on employequalifications, absent a showing
that an adverse determination on qualifications was arbitrary or
capricious. But claimant asserts that on or about June 30, 1966 he filed
a written application to qualify for the position of Assistant Water
Service Foreman, per Rule
8.
Although Carrier responds it has no record
of having received such an application, Carrier Exhibit "D" quotes one of
its Superintendents as stating he was advised that claimant had filed
an application for qualifications. Carrier further notes that a few
months before the subject incident occurred, two other employes also
junior to claimant as Water Service Mechanics obtained seniority in the
Assistant Water Service Foreman class, Los Angeles Division, and the
January 1972 seniority list reflecting these facts was "accessible" to
claimant, but he did not protest. Petitioner contends the successful
bidder failed to furnish a copy of his application to the Organization's
Division Chairman, as required by Rule 10(b).
Although the successful bidder failed to follow the prescribed
procedure, such failure does not mean that Claimant Bolin was qualified
for the desired position. The record shows claimant slept on his Rule
8
rights. The record also shows Carrier failed to live up to the
responsibilities it undertook when Rule
8
was adopted. The award will be
thPG claimant sha11 be offered immediate opportunity to qualify for an
Assistant Foreman positlion similar to the position involved in the
presefit dispute, and--if he qualifies--shall be offered the next such
vacancy that develops, with adjustment in seniority date and compensation
as requested in 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;
Award Number
21573
Page
3
Docket Number
b&T-21054
That the Carrier and the
R
ptoyes 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 violated.
A W A R D
Claim sustained to extent indicated in Opinion of Board.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division
ATTEST:
at
4/0
Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 17th day of June
1977.