NATIONAL. RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
DOOk2t
N1mber CL-23855
Carlton R. Sickles, Referee
(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks,
Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employes
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(The Belt Railway Company of Chicago
STATEMENT OF CIAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood (GL.-9334)
that:
1. Carrier violated the effective Clerks' Agreement when it refused
to permit Mr. Bennie Lewis to demonstrate his fitness and ability on Position
No. 51+7 (Valuation Accountant), but rather assigned the position to an employe
junior in service to Claimant;
2. Carrier shall now compensate Mr. Lewis for eight
(8)
hours' pay
at the pro rata rate of Position No. 547, commencing September 24, 1979, and
continuing for each and every day thereafter that a like violation exists.
OPINION OF BOARD: This is a "fitness and ability" dispute in which the Claimant
was denied_a position to which he alleges his seniority
entitled him.
The previous incumbent retired. In posting the position, among other
things, the qualifications for the position included the following: "BS with a
major in accounting or equivalent training and experience." The position was
awarded to an employe junior to the Claimant who had a BS in accounting. The
Claimant objects to the requirement of a BS Degree in accounting and alleges
that he has sufficient fitness and ability to have been accepted for the position
at least for the thirty days as provided in Rule
8.
The Carrier alleges that an employe must be qualified to perform the
duties of the position at the time of his initial assignment and that the purpose
of the qualification period is simply to enable the Carrier to correct an error
of assuming that a man is qualified when, in fact, he is not.
A review of awards indicated that it has been consistently held that
the term "fitness and ability" means that there is a reasonable probability that
the employe would be able to perform all of the duties of the position within a
reasonable time (Award 531L8). This does not mean that prior performance is a
necessity (Award 13850) but that the employe must have the potential (Award
14762 ). By the same token, as employe obviously lacking fitness dc,-s not have to be
given qualifying time.
There is a presumption that the Carrier makes a reasonable determination
of fitness and ability, but this may be rebutted by the Claimant who does not
have to show beyond a reasonable doubt that he possesses the fitness and ability
Award Number 24478 Page 2
Docket Number CL-23835
required to perform the job (Award ld424). A Claimant may show that his job
was in a direct job progression with the vacancy being sought (Award 17279), to
overcome the rebuttable presumption that the Carrier was not arbitrary in making
its determination.
In the instant matter, the first issue is the establishment of the
qualifications by the Carrier of a BS Degree with a major in accounting or the
equivalent experience. The incumbent did not have a degree in accounting.
Whether the establishment of this requirement that there be a degree
in accounting, in this instance, will be viewed as it applies to the Claimant
in order to determine whether it was arbitrary. If it could be established that
the setting of this artificial standard was not justified because of the nature
of the position or the standard could not be met by experience and training
sufficient to perform the duties of the position, then it would be arbitration.
While the Carrier has the right to enumerate the qualifications necessary for the
performance of the position, it is not privileged to overstate the qualifications
which are necessary to perform a particular function unless it is changing the
nature of the position. requiring additional qualifications, which would be
accomplished separately from the posting of the position under the rules governing
the determination of pay scales for the various positions covered by the agreement.
Thus, in spite of the specific language of the posting, if an applicant
had sufficient fitness and ability to show that there was a reasonable probability
that he could perform all the duties of the posted position, then it would be
arbitrary to establish the college degree requirement or training and experience
equivalent to the college degree requirement if, in fact, these qualifications
went beyond the requirements of the position. Applying this principle to the
Claimant, a review of the education level of the Claimant as well as the type of
experience which he had in his other employments shows that first, however
laudatory his continuing education program is, he did not have many accounting
courses and had not done very well in some of them. A review of his history
shows that he was not in the accounting department and was not in a direct job
progression toward the type of employment which he sought which could have
demonstrated the fitness and ability to perform these functions. The record
shows that there was an interview of the Claimant and that he did not appear to
understand rudimentary accounting terms and that, under the circumstances, it
is not unreasonable that the Carrier representative who interviewed the Claimant
determined that he did not have the fitness and the ability to perform the
posted position.
For these reasons, we will deny this 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;
That th= 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;
Award Number 24478 Page 3
Docket Number CL-23835
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 denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division
Attest: Acting Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
By . .
Rosemarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 14th day of July 1983.