The organization contends that the Carrier violated the Agreement when it refused to award the Claimant Computer Operator Position No. 11118 or 11103. The Claimant began work for the Carrier on August 11, 1986. Prior to her employment with the Carrier, the Claimant had been employed as a Computer operator for more than two years. On December 15, 1986, the Carrier awarded Computer Operator #11106 ('C' Position) to the Claimant, the senior qualified applicant in the District No. 2. The Claimant trained and worked at this position until March 9, 1987, when the position was abolished. On December 14, 1987, Bulletin No. 291 was issued calling for applicants for the position of Computer Operator #11103 ('C' Position). This bulletin was amended on December 15, 1987. On January 11, 1988, Bulletin No. 9 was issued, calling for applicants for the position of Computer Operator #11118 ('C' Position). The description was the same as the amendment for Position #11103. The positions were bulletined in Seniority District No. 2, and the Claimant was a Seniority District No. 2 employee.
"Applicant must be qualified computer operator, two years' experience on IBM mainframe computers. Applicant will operate computers and related equipment in compliance with prescribed methods, adjust schedules to optimize computer processing, along with other duties as assigned."
(e) (3) - In filling positions designated 'C' in the listing of such positions attached as Supplement T, through bid or displacement, which are covered by this exception, the management is not required to apply the provisions of Rule 8 (Promotion, Assignments, Form 1 Award No. 29738
Rule 8, Promotion, Assignments, and Displacements of the Clerks' July 1, 1985, Agreement states:
The central issue is whether the Claimant was qualified for the position in question. The Carrier admits that Rule 1 (e) (3) requires that among qualified applicants, preference should be given to employees in the seniority district in which the vacancy occurs, and the Organization does not attempt to argue that an applicant does not need to be qualified for the position. The Carrier contends that the Claimant was not qualified for the positions in question because she lacked the two years' experience on the IBM mainframe computer.
Numerous decisions of this Board recognize that the Carrier has the right to judge employee qualification for job assignment and that this determination should be sustained unless it can be established that the Carrier's decision was biased, arbitrary or Form 1 Award No. 29738
Organization contends the she held a computer operator position for the Carrier (Computer Operator #11106) from December 15, 1986, to March 8, 1987, when the position was abolished. The Carrier had not expressed any dissatisfaction with her performance in this position and if the job were not abolished, she would still be holding this position. While the organization contends that the Claimant was never disqualified from her previous computer position, the Carrier's Vice President stated in her denial that the Carrier never considered the Claimant fully qualified based on her work at that time.
The Computer Department Director, stated in his testimony that the requirements for the computer operator position had remainded the same since 1969 (that two years" mainframe experience or education are required.) He also said that the requirements were waived in 1987, when a change in policy was made that restricted hiring outside workers and this is how the Claimant was awarded Computer Operator Position #11106. The organization contends that if the qualifications have remained the same and if the Claimant was awarded the position in the past, then she must be qualified. They argue that there is no evidence of a policy change or for how long this change was in existence.
As further evidence that the Claimant was qualified for the position, the organization contends that she was left alone while on her previous computer operator position, and the Carrier would not have allowed this if she was not qualified. At the Unjust Treatment Hearing the Claimant stated that she had worked alone with no supervision on more than one occasion. While the Director stated at the Hearing that it would be unlikely that someone would be left alone in the computer room for an entire eight-hour shift to run the system that did not have qualifications, he also stated he could see where a situation might arise where an unqualified person might be left alone to operate equipment in the computer room.
It is undisputed that the qualifications of this job require two years' experience on IBM mainframe computers and that these qualifications weren't in effect when the Claimant held Position #11106. Moreover, it is not disputed that the Claimant does not have two years' experience on IBM mainframe computers. The Organization's evidence and arguments simply do not change this fact. Form 1 Award No. 29738
The organization is correct that the Carrier has not provided evidence of the policy change during which time the requirement was waived or explained how long it was in effect. However, the Director testified that the requirements were the same since 1969 except for this one period, and the only exception that the Organization has brought up is the case of the Claimant. Because the Carrier waived the two-year IBM mainframe requirement does not obligate them to do it again. The Carrier retains the right to establish job requirements and qualifications.
In view of all the evidence and especially the fact that the Claimant has not shown that she has two years experience with an IBM mainframe computer, specifically required for Position #11103 and 11118, we cannot say that the Carrier's determination that she was not qualified for these positions was arbitrary or capricious. Accordingly, the claim must be denied.