Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 28441
THIRD DIVISION Docket No. CL-28009
90-3-87-3-580
The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee George S. Roukis when award was rendered.
(Transportation Communications International Union
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(Illinois Central Gulf Hospital Association
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Clam of the System Committee of the Brotherhood
(GL-10201) that:
1. Company violated the agreement between the parties, in particular
Rules 6 and 9, when on November 13, 1986, Linda Nixon, a furloughed employe,
was denied the position of Membership Services Representative in line with her
seniority.
2. Company shall now pay Claimant Nixon a days' pay at the pro rata
rate of Membership Services Representative, in addition to any other compensation received, beginnin
as the Claimant is placed on the position."
FINDINGS:
The Third Division of the Adjustment Board upon the whole record
and all the evidence, finds that:
The carrier or carriers and the employe or employes involved in this
dispute are respectively carrier and employes within the meaning of the
Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 1934.
This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the
dispute involved herein.
Parties to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing thereon.
The basic facts of this case are set forth as follows: On November
7, 1986, Carrier issued Bulletin No. 2 advertising for bid four (4) Membership
Services Representative Positions. Said positions were later awarded to four
(4) employees, one of whom possessed less seniority than Claimant herein.
Claimant's seniority date was February 26, 1979, while the other employee's
seniority date was January 14, 1980. It was Claimant's position that said
assignment violated Rules 6 and 9 of the Agreement, since she had worked in
the Membership Department and was qualified to handle the contested position.
Form 1 Award No. 28441
Page 2 Docket No. CL-28009
90-3-87-3-580
Carrier responded that she did not possess sufficient fitness and ability to
perform the job and moreover, could not become qualified within the time
specified for the position. As the Claim progressed on the property, the
Organization brought to Carrier's attention that the time period for qualifying had been extended an
In other words, it is asserted that extending the time period for the junior
employee was presumptively unnecessary, if said employee was better qualified
for the position. Later, following Carrier's denial of the Claim on March 20,
1987, and the joint conference held on April 23, 1987, Claimant personally
wrote a letter to the Assistant General Manager/Treasurer, dated May 6, 1987,
wherein she detailed her work experience, particularly, her services with the
Membership Department. In part, she wrote,
"As I previously indicated, when I performed the
Membership Services duties several years ago, it
was the full range of duties. It was not necessary for me to be trained, and my performance
was commended by the Supervisor. I have also
performed these duties 'off and on' whenever the
Membership Department would get behind. I am
sure you can understand my frustration over
being considered qualified several years ago,
performing the duties satisfactorily, and now
being found unqualified."
By letter dated May 27, 1987, the Assistant General Manager/Treasurer answered
in part,
"As you provided in your letter, I have again
reviewed your fitness and ability as it relates
to the Membership Services Representative and
find no reason to change my judgment as described in my letter of January 5, 1987 to Ms.
Dorothy Busch."
Essentially, Carrier maintained that even though Claimant worked in the Membership Department in
performed limited dues processing duties, she was never qualified for the
position. It also observed that since 1982, the Membership Department installed a new computerized e
administrative rules which necessitated the retraining of all personnel in the
Membership Department. Further, it pointed out that the junior employee had
worked almost six (6) years in the area. It recognized that Rule 9 of the
Agreement provided for a thirty (30) days trial period, but argued that said
Rule does not mandate or obligate it to place an employee on a position for
which the employee lacks fitness and ability. It noted that of the many duties assigned to the posit
for thirteen (13) days. Specifically, it asserted that she did not have sufficient overall backgroun
Carrier's hardware and software, or a thorough knowledge of the Association's
health plans and eligibility requirements.
Form 1 Award No. 28441
Page 3 Docket No. CL-28009
90-3-87-3-580
In considering this case, the Board is clearly well aware of the
defining requirements of Rules 6 and 9 and takes judicial notice of the many
Third Division Awards addressing questions of qualifications. As a rule and
in the absence of bias or a clearly visible egregious selection error, an
employee must show that he or she possesses sufficient fitness or ability or a
presumptive ability to become qualified within the time specified for the
position. In the case herein, Carrier extended-the qualifying period for the
four (4) successful bidders to sixty (60) days. Thus, there was no particular
favoritism accorded to the junior employee. More important, Carrier asserted
that Claimant was plainly not qualified for the position and submitted sufficient evidence to establ
response of May 6, 1983, raised a reasonable question of fitness, but Carrier's response, namely tha
fell short of the qualifying prerequisite requirements appears more persuasive. Accordingly, since C
assertions of presumptive fitness and since there is no evidence of bias when
the junior employee was awarded the position and since by and large Carrier
has the right to determine the fitness and ability of an employee, the Board
must find for Carrier's position.
A W A R D
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division
Attest:
Nancy J. e r -.Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 21st day of June 1990.