The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee Edwin H. Benn when award was rendered.
Claimant held an Assistant Foreman's position on Gang 531 headquartered at Perry, Oklahoma. Gang 531 was a two man gang consisting of claimant and a Foreman. Gang 531 had an area of responsibility extending from M. P. 432 to M.P. 533. Gang 531 installed ties, gauged tracks, surfaced tracks, cut vegetation, changed out rails, switch points and frogs, built and repaired fences, unloaded and distributed material for regional gangs, track, repaired grade crossings, maintained and replaced sighs, unloaded ballast, and dismantled abandoned spur tracks. According to the Carrier, about 30% of the time was spent patrolling track and a preponderance of the Assistant Foreman's work came under the scope of Trackman's duties.
Gang 531 was abolished by the Carrier effective end of shift October 14, 1988 and was replaced with a mobile maintenance gang, Gang 542, with one Foreman and one Trackman and with headquarters at Pawnee, Oklahoma.
According to the Carrier, Gang 531 was abolished in order to move gang headquarters to a central location (Gang 542 was bulletined at Pawnee, Oklahoma, which is located at M.P. 478 as opposed to Perry which is located at M.P. 509) and to save money in that there would be a Trackman as opposed to an Assistant Foreman on the gang.
Claimant (who lives in Perry) did not bid on the Trackmans position on Gang 542 or to another Trackman's position on Gang 530 located at Enid, Oklahoma. Instead, Claimant bumped to a position on Regional Gang 525 headquartered at Tulsa, Oklahoma.
After Claimant exercised his seniority to Gang 525, and because of complaints by other Maintenance of Way employees, the trackman position on Gang 542 was changed by bulletin dated October 27, 1988 to provide for a trackman-driver. The organization now claims that action was improper.
First, there is no evidence that the Carrier bulletined Gang 542 in a manner so as to frustrate Claimant's ability to bid on that gang. While claimant may not have held trackman-driver' s seniority, at the time Gang 542 was first bulletined, it was bulletined for a trackman, for which Claimant did hold seniority. Form 1 Award No. 30812
Rather than bid on that position, Claimant chose to displace onto the position on Gang 525. It was after Claimant displaced to Gang 525 that the trackman position on Gang 542 was re-bulletined for a trackman-driver. Thus, there is no evidence that the Carrier in any way targeted Claimant as he asserts. No retaliation has been shown.
The record does not fully support the organization's contention that the 'trackman* referred to in Rule 27(a)(2) cannot in this case be filled by an employee who, in addition to being a 'trackman' is also a 'trackman-driver' . See Rules 18 (a) (4) ('When motor vehicles for use on the highway are assigned to a gang .
for the purpose of transporting men and material in connection with their work, one or more positions of trackman-driver shall be established in each such gang .... If no qualified employe with trackman-driver seniority bids on the bulletined position, the senior qualified laborer making application shall be assigned') and 18(a)(6) ('trackman-drivers shall be working employes in the gang and will perform work as trackman when not being used in the capacity as trackman-driver.").
But, giving the Organization the benefit of the doubt that when Rule 27(a)(2) says 'trackman' it does not mean anything more, the record shows that the only reason that the carrier rebulletined the trackman position on was because of assertions by Maintenance of way employees that the gang had to have a trackman-driver. The organization cannot successfully argue that the Carrier violated the Agreement by complying with those wishes.
Under the facts presented in this case, the claim will be denied. Form 1 Award No. 30812
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that an award favorable to the Claimant (s) not be made.