( Freiplit Handlers, Express and Station Employes PARTIES TO DISPUT l::

_STATI%MFNT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood (CL-9762)

(1) The Carrier violated the As;reement, when on January 12, 19P2, it failed to assign Detroit Clerk Ms. P. J. Coffield to Console Operator assiannent.


(2) Claimant Ms. P. J. Coffietd shall now he paid the difference in the rate of her assis;nmUnt and that of Console Operator for January 12, 19132, and Each subsequent date or eight (B) hours straight time rate of Console Operator for each day in tile event Claimant is furloughed.


()PINION nF BOARD: The Claimant, (;leek P. J. Coffield, is employed at the

Carrier's General office in Detroit, Michigan, with seniority from July 25, 1'17%1. On January 11, 198,2, the Claimant was disrlnced from her Claims Ad iustor position by a senior cnplovee. Thereafter, the CLaimant submitted a request to ex~rcisc her seniority rights of displacement over a -junior employee holding the position of Console Operator. The Claimant ioas advised that no cml,loven without ·lrior experience can qualify on that position within the thirty (3(1) working day period provided for in Rule R and denied her request for displacement. Claimant then requested an 1'n just Treatment Hearing which was hold on January 2'.2, I9P2. Claimant was, thereafter, not awarded the sought after assignment.


The Carrier's position was that the Claimant's contractual rights wcr,· not violated in that her past positions and experience `urnishcd no e-ridence of sufficient fitness and ability to qualify for the ;n,ition within thirty (3(1) working, days. Having determined that employ(-es without some prior on-the-job experience as a Console Operator cannot quality within the tf,irty (3n) working -lays, the Carrier's Data Services Departme=nt adopted the followng policy:







              (b) In the event nn applications are received from employees possessing prior Console Operator schooling, or on-the-job experience, all uncualified applicants will he offered an I.R."I. Company aptitude test (a logic and business math test) and tl)a crninr applicant ,Passing the test to he awarded the position and allowed an extended qualifying period in which to qunlifv."


This Board finds the above, unilateral adoption of policy to he in direct conflict with the applicable language of Rulr~5. That rule does not distinguish among promotion, assignments, and displacements. It clearly and unaml-icguously ::ppttes the su'`ficient ability test to all three subjects. It most certainly does not ··nvision a different and more stringent stan,lard to apply to displacement versus promotion or assignment. Having determined that the provisions of Rule 8, Time in Which to Quality, is impractical for the Consol, nperator's position, we find the Carrier may adopt a more liberal and reasonable period of time for qualification. However, Rule S deals with time for qualification not the initial exercise of seniority. Secondly, Rule Y reinforces the anplication of Rule 5 and, in describing employees who are allowed time to qualify, does not distinguish between bulletined positions or

~. c!isplacemont rig'.hts~~ ccord inglv, we find the Carrier's poliryi concerning
 Console Operators ~to he an arbitrary and capricious exercise of management
 rights. one. ~Ictermining that experience dictated that Console operators could
 not pr~ticahlv quality within thirty (311) working days, the Carrier improperly
 distinguished between eml'lovees exercising seniority for displacement versus
 _ those employees inhlinc· for promotion or avsigrimvnt.Accordingly, we will
 srlstain this claim.

          FINDINGS; Ili,- Third Division of the Adjustment Hoard, capon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:


          That the parties waived oral hearinU;


That the Carrier and the Emnloves involved in this dispcite are respectively Carrier and Employes witi,in thf· mcaning· of the Railway Lahnr Act, as approved June 21, t934;


That this Division of tho Ac!j-istment linard iias jnrisdiction over tha dispute involved herein; and


          That the Agreement was violatr-d.


                          A I! A ? 1)


          Claim sustained.


                              f:ATlW;Al. RAILROAP ADJUSTMENT HOARD

                              :'v order of Third Division


ATTEST:
          Nancy J. e - Executive Secretary


Dated nt Chicago, Illinois, this Lath clay of June, 1985