NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION Docket Number SG-22528
Richard R Rasher, 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 M. Q. Ives for the difference in
rate of pay as an hourly rated Signalman and that of a monthly rated
signal maintainer, and all necessary expenses, commencing April 9,
1977, and continuing until he is reinstated on his position of Signal
Maintainer at Utica, Kansas, on which he was disqualified on April 8,
1977 by Supervisor of Signals & Communications D. W. Brown."
LCarrier file: B 225-742/
OPINION of BOARD: The Claimant was hired as an assistant signalman
on March 15, 1976. He acquired signalman
seniority on January 5, 1977 and bid
on
a signalman's position.
On March 14, 1977, the Claimant bid on and was assigned to a signal
maintainer position at Utica, Kansas.
Claimant upon reporting to Utica was required to learn his
territory. Since the Signal Supervisor and Signal Foreman were
assigned to emergency service, the Claimant was instructed
on
his new
territory by an experienced maintainer who, as it happened, was
junior to the Claimant. Sometime shortly after his assignment,
trouble developed in the signal system on Claimant's territory.
Several trains were delayed while Claimant attempted to locate the
trouble. The Signal Foreman was called out and found that the
switch between the battery and the rectifier had been left open
permitting the batteries to drain and lose the power necessary for
the signals. This incident and the Signal Supervisor's determination
that the Claimant could not adjust track circuits or a switch circuit
controller resulted in the Claimant's being disqualified from the
signal maintainer's position on April 8, 1977. Claimant returned
to a signal position.
Award Number 22580 Page 2
The claim before this Board is for the difference between
compensation of an hourly rated signalman and the rate for a monthly
rated maintainer, plus necessary expenses.
The Organization contends that the Carrier improperly
disqualified the Claimant. The Organization contends that Rule 500(d)
requires the Carrier to instruct and assist the Claimant for a prescribed period of time, i.e. time
Further, it is the Organization's position that the
Carrier violated the agreement by not giving Claimant proper instructions and assistance which would
signal maintainer's position at Utica, Kansas; and that the employes
who instructed and disqualified the Claimant were biased and capricious.
The Carrier's position is that it possesses the sole
responsibility to judge an employe's qualifications. Carrier argues
that tests alone (which the Claimant passed) do not establish an
employe's ability or qualifications to hold a signal
maintainer's
position. The Carrier contends that Signal Foremen on their
respective territories regularly accompany maintainers until they,
the Signal Foremen, are satisfied that the maintainer knows the
territory and can properly perform the required duties.
Rule 500(d), the Promotion Rule and the
essence of
the
Organization's case, provides:
"(d) Employes having completed their periods of
training as provided in Article II of this Agreement
without having gained the required experience in
maintenance work will, when assigned to a bulletined
position in maintenance, be afforded the necessary
instructions and assistance for a period of not to
exceed thirty (30) days to enable them to qualify
under this rule."
If anything is clear in this case it is that the Claimant
was an ambitious employe seeking to promote rapidly through the ranks
of the Signalmen's craft. It is not necessary to discourse on the
highly technical and skilled characteristics associated with this
craft. Neither is it necessary to detail the critical nature of
signalmen's work.
Award Number 22580 Page 3
Docket Number SG-22528
The Carrier had in place a lengthy and thorough training
program for its signal employes. The Claimant was passed through
this program but failed at the signal maintainer's level when he
was required to apply his "book knowledge" to the practicalities
of day to day field work.
The record does not support any finding that the Carrier
or its instructors in the signal department were biased in judging
the qualifications of the Claimant. The Carrier's finding that
the Claimant's fitness and ability were lacking was based upon
evidence and observation. It is not necessary to cite the many
authorities supporting the doctrine that a Carrier's determination
of qualifications will not be disturbed where there is lack of
evidence supporting a discriminatory or arbitrary judgment process.
Therefore, the record requires denial of the claim for
monetary relief. However, it should be noted that the Claimant
received a minimum of instruction and assistance in learning the
territory and responsibilities of the maintainer's position at
Utica, Kansas. This case calls out for the Carrier
"giving
the
employe a second chance" to reach and qualify on the maintainer's
position in his chosen craft.
FILINGS; 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.
Award Number 22580 Page 4
Docket Number SG-22528
A W A R D
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division
ATTEST:(
Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this
3pth
day of
October l979.