As a result of an exercise of seniority, Claimant contacted Carrier's General Roadmaster in January 1987 and indicated that he wanted to displace the incumbent on a Model 40 Burro Crane. The Roadmaster advised him that he was not qualified to operate the Burro Crane and therefore he would not be allowed to displace the incumbent operator. However, the Roadmaster agreed to provide Claimant two weeks to learn how to operate the machine and demonstrate his ability to perform the job.
Carrier officials concluded after observing the Claimant on February 9, 1987, that he was not qualified to operate the Burro Crane. According to the Carrier, Claimant had difficulty in some of the crane's operations and perhaps more importantly was not conversant with the applicable rules for operating this type of equipment.
The organization contends that Claimant holds seniority as a machine operator and there is no provision in the agreement which requires employes to requalify in exercising their seniority on another machine. Likewise, Carrier has never required employes to submit to questioning or examination in order to qualify for a given assignment in the machine operator class. In so doing in the instant case, the Organization contends that Carrier's actions were arbitrary and capricious. In addition, the organization disputes the Carrier's determination that Claimant was not qualified to operate the burro crane. It points out that two employes who worked with and trained Claimant to operate the crane submitted statements on the property attesting to his skill and demonstrated ability in the performance of this work. For these reasons, it is the Organization's position that this claim should be sustained.
Carrier insists that a machine operator, like any other employee, must be qualified in order to displace on a piece of equipment or a machine. only when an employee is qualified does seniority come into play in accordance with the provisions of the Agreement. In this case, Carrier submits, its determination that Claimant was not qualified can hardly be deemed arbitrary or capricious. Claimant was given the opportunity to learn to operate the crane and become familiar with the safety rules necessary for its operation. He did not do so. Carrier argues that the matter of determining an employee's qualifications to perform the work of a particular assignment or a position is the prerogative of Management, and the organization has been unable to prove in this case that Carrier's actions constituted an Agreement violation. Form 1 Award No. 30204
The Board concurs with Carrier that whether an employee has sufficient fitness and ability to fill a position or operate a machine is a matter of judgment that is managerial prerogative. Unless the Organization can prove that the Claimant was competent to perform the position involved or that carrier acted in a biased or prejudicial manner in evaluating the Claimant's competency, the decision of the Carrier must be final. See Third Division Awards 6054, 6178. It is also a well-established principle that Carrier can ask the employee to demonstrate fitness and ability, either by examination or on-the-job demonstration, and provided the test is fair and work-related, the Board will not interfere with Carrier's determination. (See Public Law Board No. 2035, Award 9)
Applying those principles to the instant case, we find no basis in the record which would warrant sustaining the Claim. Contrary to the Organization's contention that seniority alone is controlling when displacing a junior employee, Rule 2(g) makes clear that the senior employee must also be qualified for the position in order to bump the incumbent:
Thus, even though Claimant is a Machine operator for purposes of classification, it does not necessarily follow that he can automatically exercise his seniority to operate any piece of equipment within the large inventory of equipment and machines maintained by the carrier. He must possess the necessary qualifications to operate the equipment in accordance with Rule
Here, Carrier permitted Claimant to demonstrate his qualifications to perform the requisite duties of a Burro Crane operator and he failed to qualify. We are hardly in a position to find arbitrary or capricious Carrier's determination that Claimant was unfamiliar with safety and operating rules necessary for the operation of this piece of equipment. Moreover, the evidence submitted by the Organization in the form of statements by fellow employees who worked with and trained Claimant on the Burro Crane does not refute that critical safety consideration.
As a final note, it should be emphasized that our findings and conclusions in this case are based solely on evidence and argument submitted by the parties during the handling of this case on the property. Based on that evidence, we find that the Organization has fallen short of carrying its burden of persuading this Board that the Agreement was violated in the instant case.