NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJDSTMM HOARD
Award fiomber 22447
TAD DIVISION Docket Number w-22368
William M. Zdgett, Referee
Brotherhood of Maintenance
or way
Employes
PARTIES TO DISPUTE.
(Burlington Northern Inc.
BTATDSQIT W CLAIM: "Class of the System Committee of the Brotherhood
that:
(1) The Agreement was violated when Track Inspector
d. $_. HmrPer instead of Assistant Foreman David Btuetea vas used to
tras< August 27~19761to and including September 6, 1976G(System File
S-P-140C/IiT-6(d)-1 1/5/77).
(2) As a consequence of the aforesaid violation, claimant
Stnefen shall be allowed.
(a)
the difference
between the General Section
Foreman's sate and the Assistant Foreman's rate
for eight (8) hours on each of the work
days
within the period extending from August 27a 1976
to tad including September 6, 1976
and
(b) 36 hours of pay at the General Section Foreman's overtime rate."
OP31ION OF BOARD: Carrier filled s vacation vacancy on the position
of general section foreman at Tacoma, Washington
under the provisions of Rule 19(B)(3). The employee argue that the
position should have been filled by claimant, and that he was entitled
to it under Rule 19(B)(2), in preference to the person need by Censer.
The applicable provisions of Rule
y9sA2)
_ana__.(3_Z ~-___..-
B. Vacation relief may be provided by assign' qwkUfted
employes in seniority order is the felloriag order of preference
before other employes will be assigned to perform vacation
-relief on an Involuntary _besias_
___ _.
(2) Employes holding seniority in lour classitiaatioa
and seniority ranks in the seniority sub-department of the
vacationing employe who are working at the location or on
the gang where relief is to be provided,
Award Humber 22447 Page 2
Docket Humber W-
60
"(3) Employed who have filed written
requests under Section A of this
rule who are not war3lng at the
location or on the gang where relief is to be provided, and who
will be subject to Hales 35 and
36."
The employee point out that claimant was Assistant foremen
on the gang in which the vacation vacancy existed. They assert that
he was qualified because he held that position and also had attended
Carrier's foremen school. On the basis of the uncontested facts the
employee argue that they had shoes an entitlement wider the Hail
acid that Carrier was required to come ford with specific evidence
toy rebut that entitlement.
on the propeertty Carrier denied the claim on the grounds
that
claimant
was not qualified and offered to discuss the specific
reasons for taking that position. There is so evidence in the record
that the parties discussed the reasons which Carrier had for asserting
that claimant was not qualified. The ' position that Carrier
had to costs forward with the reasons vby it believed elalmm:t was
nmqaalified may have mash w-
4 m,
different facts. Here both parties
share the responsibility for the lack of a specific record an that
point. The employee could have insisted that Carrier state the
roam*= it adverted to and if it did not this pint here would have
mare farce. Carrier should have advanced these reasons fully bat
it at least meets a start when it invited discussion on that pint.
tinder all of the circantances, Carrier was entitled to
rely on its statement of lack of qualifications. The burden of
as incomplete record is shared by both parties in this case.
PMIMt The Third Division of the Adjustment
Board,
upon the whsle
record and all the evidence, finds and holds:
That the parties waived oral hearing;
That the Carrier and the Employes involved in this diapmte
are respectively Carrier and Employes within the meaning of the MsLlwmy
Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934;
That this Division of the Adjustment Hoard has jurisdicatiam
over the dispute involved herein; and
Award Number
22447 Page 3
Docket Number
Eli-22368
That the Agreement was not violated.
A W A R D
Claim denied.
AATIO&1L RAILROAD ADJM2KOW BUABD
$y Order of Third Division
ATTEB't:~ U-
ALL-7~
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 13th day of July
1979.