NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION Locket Number CL-25153
Thomas F. Carey, Referee
(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks,
( Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employes
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(Illinois Central Gulf Railroad Company
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood (GL-9748)
that:
1. Company violated the Agreement between the Parties on December 7,
8, 9, 14 and 15, 1981, when Extra Clerk C. P. Payne, Memphis, Tennessee, was
not called for a vacancy as Lift Truck Operator on Position SD-2, in line with
his seniority and Rule 9.
2. Company shall now compensate Clerk C. P. Payne for the dates of
December 7, 8, 9, 14 and 15, 1981, at the rate of Position SD-2, Lift Truck
Operator, $74.88 per day.
OPINION OF BOARD: The record indicates that on December 7, 8, 9, 14 and 15,
1981 a vacancy existed on Position SD-2, Lift Truck Operator,
Materials Department, Memphis, Tennessee. On December 7, 14 and 15, Junior
Extra Clerk G. A. Hall worked the position. On December 8 and 9, Junior Extra
Clerk R. W. Harris worked the position. On all the claim dates, the Claimant,
who had greater seniority than Extra Clerks Hall and Harris was available for
call.
The Organization contends that the Claimant should have been given
the position on the claim dates. He was the most senior employe available for
service at the time. Furthermore, the Organization asserts that the Claimant
had, in fact, worked that position on December 10, and 16, 1981. Therefore,
the Organization concludes that the Claimant was clearly qualified to assume
the duties of Lift Truck Operator and, as the senior employe available, should
have been given that vacancy.
The Carrier asserts that the Claimant was not qualified as a Lift
Truck Operator and, therefore, should not have been called to fill that position
on the claim dates. The Carrier contends that under OSHA Rule No. 29 CFR
1910.178(1), only "trained and authorized operators shall be permitted to operate
a powered industrial truck". The Carrier points out that prior to this claim,
the Claimant had not received training or company authorization to drive the
lift truck.
The controlling provision of the Agreement reads as follows:
"Rule 6 - Promotion
(a) Employees covered by these rules shall be in line for promotion.
Promotion, assignments and displacements shall be based on seniority,
fitness and ability. Fitness and ability being sufficient, seniority
shall prevail.
Award Number 24950 Page 2
Docket Number CI-25153
(b) The word 'sufficient' is intended to more clearly establish the
right of the senior employee to bid in a new position or vacancy
where two or more employees have adequate fitness and ability."
The central issue then is whether the Claimant had sufficient ability
and fitness to fill the position of Lift Truck Operator on the claim dates.
The entire record has been reviewed. It reveals that a Lift Truck
Operator must have specific training for that position. Claimant did not have
that training.
In addition, the record indicates that while Claimant was called to
fill this position in the past, he was not allowed to drive the lift truck on
those occasions. Instead, he did other laborer duties which did not involve
the operation of Carrier's equipment. Accordingly, he was not qualified either
by experience or training, to function as a Lift Truck Operator on the days in
question.
Our finding is consistent with that of Public Law Board No. 1812,
Award No. 45. There the Board concluded that, "Claimant was not qualified
automatically for the position in question by the fact that he filled the position
on various occasions in the past." Here, too, Claimant's prior occasional
filling of the position did not automatically qualify him to actually perform
as a Lift Truck Operator on the claim dates. For the foregoing reasons, the
claim is denied.
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 Employes involved in this dispute are
respectively Carrier and Employe 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. p
v
A W A R D . ~~24
s_
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BUYRD l..'
By Order of Third Division
r',,C
~`Attest:
Nancy .X.
/Ile
ver - Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 14th day of August 1984.