NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION Locket Number MW-24849
Rodney E. Dennis, Referee
(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(Burlington Northern Railroad Company
(Former St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Company)
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:
(1) The Carrier violated the Agreement when it assigned and used
Trackman L. R. Wayland instead of Trackman R. L. Conley to fill a vacancy as
"Operator of TM-164" on June 22, 1981 (System File B-16331MWC 81-12-1A).
(2)(a) The position of "Operator of TM-164" be awarded to Mr. R.
L. Conley with seniority as such dating from June 22, 1981.
(b) Claimant R. L. Conley shall be allowed the difference between
what he earned as a trackman and what he should have earned
as "Operator of TM-164" beginning June 22, 1981 and to continue
until the violation is terminated.
OPINION OF BOARD: On June 1, 1981, Carrier advertised an Operator's position.
Interested bidders had until 12:00 noon on June 12, 1981, to
submit bids. Claimant R'. L. Conley, a Trackman, submitted a timely bid. L. R.
Wayland, the man eventually placed in the job, did not submit a timely bid. He
did, however, have on file a previous bid on a Machine Operator's job.
Carrier contends that neither Conley nor Wayland had any bidding
rights on Special Equipment Operators' positions, since Trackman and Special
Equipment Operators are covered by entirely separate Schedule Agreements.
The Organization countered by arguing that since no one on the Special
Equipment Operators' Seniority List bid on the Special Equipment Operators
opening and it was going to be filled by someone from the Trackman's Seniority
List, it should be filled in accordance with the Rules of the August 1, 1975
Agreement. Specifically, the most senior qualified bidder should be awarded
the job.
Carrier eventually stated that in the final analysis, Wayland was
more senior to the Claimant and that even if seniority between Wayland and
Conley were a factor in this case (and it contends that it is not), Wayland
should have been awarded the job.
This Board has reviewed the record before us and concludes that Carrier
presents the more persuasive argument in this instance. We can find no basis
in this record to sustain this claim.
Award Number 25280 Page 2
Docket Number MW-24849
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 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.
A W A R D
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division
Attest:
Nancy J. -Executive Secretary
bated at Chicago, Illinois, this 28th day of February 1985.