(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks, ( Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood

1. (terrier violated the effective Clerks' Agreement when it arbitrarily and capriciously disqualified Clerk D. H. Rust from the position of Clerk, Traiame.sters' Office, Al
2. Carrier shall now compensate Mr. Rust for each and every day that he is denied the position of Clerk, Trainmasters' Office commencing sixty (60) days prior to June 11, 1979, and continuing fns as long as the violation exists.

 OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant, D. H. Rust, was employed by Carrier as a Transportation
 Department Clerk on July 31, 1978. On January 29, 1979, Carrier
 advertised, by Bulletin No. 631, the position of Clerk, Trainmaster's Office,
 Albioa, Pennsylvania. Since no employe with seniority rights to the position
 applied for the job., it was assigned to Claimant on Sunday, February 4, 1979.

 After working on the job for twenty-nine days (in addition to two days as a student), Claimant was notified by Assistant Supervisor Assignments R. C. Gould that he was disqualified from the position, effective close of work, March 16, 1979. This notice was received by Claimant via letter, dated March 17, 1979.

 The Organization contends that the disqualification of Claimant from the position of Clerk, Traimaster's Office violated the Agreement, particularly Rules 28, 30 and 35. Those Rules, insofar as they are relevant, read:











              3. In the event positions are not filled under

          Sections 1 sad 2 above positions may then be filled by

          appoiatmentj, except as otherwise provided is Rule 36.


          "RULE 35 - FAILURE TO QUALIFY

        (a) Employees entitled to advertised positions as those exercising displacement rights shah be allowed (30) working dayss with full opportunity in which to qualify and failings shall retain all of their seniority rights, may bid on any advertised positions but shall not displace any regularly assigned employees.


        Employees will be given reasonable cooperation is their efforts to qualify*


        (b) When it is definitely determined that employees are not qualified for positions they must be removed before expiration of the thirty (30) day time limit., provided the Local Chairman is given reasons therefor in writing."


The organization contends that Carrier acted unfairly is disqualifying Claimant from the clerical position. It argues that the position was a rather complicated one, yet on only one occasion was Claimant informed by Supervisor Gould, or any other Supervisor, that Claimant was making errors on the fob.

 The Organization also points out that since Claimant was assi to the position, Carrier had a greater responsibility to assist him than if he had bid for it.

 Furthexmorep the Organization relies on the statements of R. D. Hill, a clerk is the Trainmaster's Office with thirty-seven years' seniority. In Hill's opinion, Claiman't's work "was nearly satisfactory as nap other clerk that has experience on the fob."

 In addition, the Organization maintains that Supervisor Gould was biased against the Claimant and, therefore could not objectively evaluate his performance.

 Accosdinglyj, the Organization seeks the reinstatement of the Claimant to the position of Clerk at the Traimaster's Office, effective, March 16, 1979. In addition, the Organization asks that Claimant be compensated for each day he is denied the position of Clerks Trainmaster's Office, effective sixty (60) days prior to June L1, 1979 and continuing for as long as the violation exists.

 Carrier, on the other handy argues that the claim should be denied for both procedural and substantive reasons. As to the procedural issue, the Carrier points out that a separate claim for monetary damages was filed by the Organization on June 11, 197 . Rule 21 of the Agreement requires that claims be filed
                Award Number 24132 page 3

                _ Docket Number cL-23761


within 60 days "from the date of the occurrence on which the claim or grievance is based." Claimant 1979 (effective march 16, 1979): the claim for monetary damages was first made on June 11, 1979· ?boar according to Carrier, the monetary claim is clearly untimely.

 As to the merits of the claim, Carrier argues that Claimant received extensive supervision by his supervisor R. C. Gould or other experienced personnel for a total of 2b.1 work days during Claimant's trial period.

 According to Carrier, the record clearly shows that despite such supervision. Claimant consistently made errors concerning the calling of mews and the marking of crew boards.

 Thus, is Carrier's view, despite Carrier's "reasonable cooperation", Claimant simply did not make sufficient progress to indicate his ability to handle the duties of the position. Accordingly, Carrier was fully justified in removing him from the position at the end of the qualification period.

 As to the procedural issue, we find Carrier's position persuasive. It is true as the Organization argued, that its claim for monetary damages (dated June 11, 1979) was not e wholly new claim. However, it is new to the extent that it seeks a relief which is separate and distinct from that sought is the original claim. Furthermore, the Organization itself recognized this by filing as additional claim on June 11, 1979. If the organization believed that the original claim encompassed monetary damages, it would not have sought to add a separate claim for them.

 Furthermore, this grievance is not a continuing violation as the organization maintains. on March 16, 1979, Claimant was disqualified from his position. This was a single and finite act and is, therefore, not is the nature of a continuing violation. Thus, the Organization's claim for compensatory damages is denied on procedural grounds.

 With respect to the merits of the claim, we must uphold the Organization's position. It is true that its employee during their qualification periods. It is also true that Supervisor Gould's notes show fob. However, the record indicates that on only one occasion (February 26, 1979) did Gould inform Claimant of the errors Claimant a11eWly made. He was not counselled or warned sufficiently, in facts after that incident, Claimant was told on March 5, 1979 that "he was improving; that he did a good fob." Thus, as far as Claimant had reason to know he was perforaing adequately. Carrier's officials led him to believe that he was not in ,jeopardy.

 The record also indiates that Carrier failed to adequately explain the requirements of the fob to Claimant. Without these it would be difficult
 for Claimant to know if he was performing adequately. ,_
                Award Number 2132 Page 4

                _ Docket Number CL-23761


For the foregoing reasons, it appears to us that Carrier did not afford Claimant a fair and "reasonable opportunity" to fulfill the duties of position of Clerks $sinmaeter'a Office,, Albion., Pennsylvania. Accordingly, if Claimant still desires the position, he shall be provided forthwith as opportunity, consistent with Rule 35, to quality for the position.

        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 Enployes involved is this dispute are respectively Carrier and Mnployes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 193.;

 That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and

        That the Agreement was violated.


                          A W p R D


        Claim sustained in accordance with the opinion.


                          NATIONAL RAILROAD ALITUSTMENT HOARD

                          By Order of Third Division


        ATTEST: Acting Executive Secretary National Railroad Adjustment Board


        BY

7 semarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant

        Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 27th,day of January 1983. ~

                                        ,~CEI VEp


                                              1 '~

                                      i~ r=~ ~ . ~~

                                                    :.


                                          c.'

                                                  J

                                          Wo C

                                          v