The situation which exists in this case is aptly set forth by the Organization in its Submission as follows:
The situation which brought about this dispute is found in the fact that an Electronic Specialist position was advertised on July 22, 1992. The position was awarded effective July 30, 1992, to the same rostered Electronic Specialist who had been the previous incumbent of the position. This action by Carrier prompted the Organization to initiate the claim which is the subject of this case on behalf of the three named individuals none of whom are rostered Electronic Specialists.
The Organization argues that under the provisions of Appendix "F", the Claimants should have been tested, and, if found to be qualified as Electronic Specialists, should have been given preference when awarding the advertised position over the previous incumbent. The Organization further contends that one of the Claimants (Tribioli) ". . . had already bid an Electronic Specialist position and was deemed qualified by Conrail when Mr. Harte was originally awarded the specialist position." Additionally, the Organization posits that Carrier was obligated to determine by testing the Claimants to see if they were, in fact, qualified for training as Electronic Specialist and then assign the senior Claimant to the advertised position and apply the training provisions of Appendix "F".
Carrier's position is that the provisions of Rule 2-A-2 were properly applied in this instance; that there was no evidence presented to show that any of the Claimants were ever trained or qualified as Electronic Specialists; and that Appendix "F" specifically provides that Carrier alone is entitled to determine those employees who are to be trained as Electronic Specialists.
The applicable agreement provisions which are involved in this dispute are as follows: Form 1 Award No. 31647
The individual who vacated and then re-bid the position in question had established seniority in the electronic specialist class in accordance with the terms and conditions of Rule 3-A-1. None of the Claimants had any seniority standing in this class. Rule 2-A-2 is clear in its meaning and intent. If an employee vacates a position, he/she cannot immediately return to that same position unless in the interim one of two things occurs: first, if belshe is subsequently displaced or, second, if there are no other qualified bidders for the vacated position.
It is the Board's determination on the basis of the evidence and rule language as found in this case that there were no other qualified bidders for the vacated position and the previous incumbent was properly assigned thereto on the basis of his established seniority in the class. Appendix "F" is a detailed agreed-upon procedure which provides the procedures for the procurement of qualified Electronic Specialists. It provides for a training period and procedure which includes schooling and possibly on-the-job training after which testing will occur to determine qualifications after which a standing is established on the Electronic Specialist Roster under Rule 3-A-1. It does not require that untrained individuals must be assigned to bulletined Electronic Specialists positions where, as here, there is a bidder who is qualified and already rostered in the class, albeit the previous incumbent of the position. In addition, Appendix "F" is extremely clear in its provision that ". . . a determination will be made by the Company as to which applicants are qualified for training."
As for the assertion that one of the Claimants had been previously "deemed qualified" for an Electronic Specialist position, there simply is no evidence or proof in this case record to support such an assertion. The Board has often held that assertions standing alone are not probative evidence. Form 1 Award No. 31647