NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
Form 1 THIRD DIVISION Award No. 29700
Docket No. SG-29748
93-3-91-3-105
The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee John C. Fletcher when award was rendered.
PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen
(National Railroad Passenger Corporation (AMTRAK)
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
"Claim on behalf of the General Committee of
the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen on the
National Rail Passenger Corporation AMTRAK):
Claim on behalf of W. L. Riggin. Mr. Riggin
is a Maintainer headquartered at Bay View,
in Baltimore, MD. His regularly assigned
hours are 0700-1500 Monday thru Friday, with
relief days on Saturday and Sunday.
a) claim that the Carrier violated Rule 12-a
(2nd par.), Appendix "C" paragraph A-1, and
Appendix "R", of the February 1, 1987
Agreement between the Carrier and the
Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen, effective
February 1,1987. The agreement was violated
when W. R. Shultz was awarded position BA042-EC4 (C&S Electronic Technician) on
Bulletin No. 89-27, dated June 6, 1989. Mr.
Shultz was awarded this position, effective
June 16, 1989.
b) claim that Mr. Riggin be paid fourteen
dollars and eighty cents per day for each
day that Mr. Shultz is assigned to position
BA-042-EC4 (C&S E.T.), beginning on June 16,
1989. This claim will be continuous, including all overtime, until such time that Mr.
Riggin is assigned to the position that was
awarded to Mr. Shultz. The amount of compensation requested for Mr. Riggin represents the difference
eight hour day between his and Mr. Shultz's
positions. Mr. Riggin, whose bid was not
considered by the Carrier, was the senior
applicant for position BA-042-EC4 (C&S
Electronic Technician). He should have been
awarded the position ahead of Mr. Shultz."
Carrier file NEC. BRS (S) - SD-418. BRS Case
No. 8276.
Form 1 Award No. 29700
Page 2 Docket No. SG-29748
93-3-91-3-105
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 employe 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.
This Claim contends that Carrier violated the Agreement when
it failed to assign Claimant to an Electronic Technician position
for which he obviously was not qualified. Before the position was
awarded, Claimant was afforded an opportunity to take the
Electronic Technician exam. A test score of 70% is considered a
passing grade. Claimant had a scoring mark of 44%. The second
time he took the test he scored 573. At the time the Electronic
Technician position was open, Claimant was not qualified;
therefore, it was not an Agreement violation to refuse to allow his
assignment thereto:
The Organization has pointed out that the employee awarded the
position, at the time Claimant was seeking assignment thereto, had
not been tested for the position. When this individual was
eventually tested and failed, carrier abolished the position. Had
Carrier continued a junior unqualified employee on the position
while denying Claimant the position on the basis of qualification,
this case would be viewed in a different light. This is not the
situation, though. When it was established that the junior
employee assigned was not qualified, the position was abolished.
Claimant, who was not qualified for the job, was not injured by a
different unqualified individual being assigned to the job for a
brief period of time.
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division
Attest:
ncy
J. ~, r, Secretary To The Board
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 16th day of July 1993.