The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that:
The carrier or carriers and the employee or employees involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employee 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.
Claimant was employed as an Accounting Clerk in Carrier's Accounts Payable Department in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. On April 1,1991, Carrier advised Claimant that, because the Accounts Payable Department would be implementing an image scanning system, the Accounting Clerks would be required to pass a standard keystroke test by May 2,1991. Carrier's letter to Claimant further advised: Form 1 Award No. 31542
Claimant did not take the test, and on May 3, 1991, Carrier advised him that he was disqualified from his position, effective May 17, 1991.
The Organization contends that Carrier violated several provisions of the Agreement. The Organization argues that of twelve employees who were disqualified, nine were African-American, eight were women and ten were over the age of forty. The Organization contends that Carrier violated the Preamble to the Agreement by discriminating on the basis of race, sex, and age.
The Organization further argues that Carrier violated Rule 2-A-5 because it failed to confer with the Local Chairman prior to disqualifying Claimant and because it failed to give Claimant full cooperation in his efforts to qualify. The Organization maintains that Carrier improperly set an arbitrary cutoff on the keystroke test, instead of giving Claimant time on the job to demonstrate his fitness and ability.
The Organization also contends that Carrier violated the Training Rule. In the Organization's view, Carrier was required to provide Claimant with the necessary training on the job under his normal supervision and violated the Agreement by merely making terminals available for Claimant to use on his own time and without compensation.
Carrier contends that the Organization has failed to prove discrimination. Carrier maintains that Claimant was disqualified from the position because he failed the keystroke test and not because of his race, sex, or age.
Carrier urges that it has the basic management right to change the qualifications for a position in light of new technologies and that it did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in disqualifying Claimant. Carrier maintains that the Claimant knew for two or three months prior to the April 1, 1991 letter that the Accounting Clerks would Form 1 Award No. 31542
be required to qualify on keystrokes. Carrier maintains that it gave Claimant full cooperation in his efforts to qualify and complied with the Training Rule by providing terminals and keyboards on which to practice in preparation for the test.
Carrier also contends the it did not violate Rule 2-A-5. Carrier maintains that no consultation with the Local Chairman was required because Claimant was not disqualified before the end of the thirty day qualifying period. Furthermore, maintains Carrier, a conference was held.
We consider each of the Organization's contentions in turn. First, we find that the Organization did not carry its burden of proving discrimination on the basis of race, sex, or age. The mere recitation of the demographic characteristics of the employees who failed to qualify does not establish that those employees were the victims of discrimination. The number of women disqualified cannot prove that Claimant was a victim of sex discrimination because Claimant is male. Moreover, the record contains no basis for comparison of the make-up by race, gender, and age, of the entire pool that was subject to the keystroke requirement. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the keystroke test was, in any way, a pretext for discrimination and there is no evidence that the keystroke test was not job-related.
He was advised on April 1, 1991, of the need to pass the keystroke test by May 2, 1991. Consequently, the requirement of a conference with the Local Chairman prior to an employee's removal from a position before the expiration of thirty days did not apply. When Claimant failed to pass the keystroke test, he was properly disqualified from the position.
Furthermore, we find no evidence to support the contention that the 10,000 keystroke per hour standard was set arbitrarily. We also find no evidence that Carrier failed to cooperate fully with Claimant in his efforts to qualify or that Carrier violated the Training Rule.
Carrier made Claimant aware of its plan to change to an imaging system and of the need to become keystroke qualified with ample time to do so. Carrier officially gave Claimant notice on April 1, 1991. Carrier made terminals and keyboards available for Claimant to use to prepare himself for the test.
We are not persuaded by the Organization's contention that Claimant should have been allowed to practice his keyboarding skills during working hours. The Training Rule requires payment for training time when the training is required by Carrier. In the instant case, Carrier did not require any specific training program. It merely advised Claimant that, because of changing technology, he would be expected to qualify in basic keystroke skills. Its making terminals and keyboards available did not signify a requirement that Claimant use them. Carrier merely provided the equipment for Claimant and the other employees to use at their election.
The following language of Third Division Award 29759 applies with equal force to the instant claim: