Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
Award No.
32186
Docket No.
MW-31911
97-3-94-3-247
The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee
Marty E. Zusman when award was rendered.
(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(Chicago Central & Pacific Railroad Company
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
"Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:
(1) The Carrier violated the Agreement when it posted Bulletin No. 5,
dated February 11, 1993, listing an improper requirement and
assigning two (2) headquarters points for the position advertised
(Carrier's File BMWE 93-011).
(2) As a consequence of the violation referred to in Part (1) above, the
Carrier shall cease to require applicants to be qualified before being
assigned to the advertised positions and said positions shall be
rebufetined with only one (1) headquarters point."
FINDINGS:
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.
Parties to said dispute were given due notice of hearing thereon.
Form i Award No. 32186
Page 2 Docket No. iNIW-31911
97-3-94-3-247
The Organization fled claim by letter dated February 17, 1993 that the Carrier
violated the Agreement in posting Bulletin for CarpenterBridgeman with prequalifications and multipl
revised Bulletins included pre-qualifications which violate Rule 16(b) in denying
employees an opportunity to qualify for the position. The Organization further alleges
violation of Rule 17(a) and Rule 18(a) in that said Rules require a single headquarter
assignment. It is the Organization's view that prior Bulletins and Rules support its
position.
The Carrier denied violation of Rule 16(b) in that it requires applicants to
"al
least possess" the qualifications listed to be considered a qualified applicant. It supports
the listing of two headquarters by reference to Rule 6(c)(2). The Carrier argues that the
posted Bulletin No. 5 and its revision reflected practice and conformed with the
Agreement in all respects.
First, the Board ruled on the alleged violation of Rule 16(b) in Third Division
Award 32189 and will not revisit that issue here. We held that:
"... Rule 16 does not state that the Carrier must promote employees
without any knowledge of bridge operation and thereafter, provide at least
five days in which to demonstrate proficiency in the operation, rules,
regulations and reporting procedures of the position. The Agreement
contains no language suggesting ... that the Carrier must promote an
employee who lacks basic fitness and ability solely on the basis of seniority
and thereafter train those who lack lpjpjpBlm fitness and ability."
That part of the claim is denied for the above stated reasons.
As for the alleged violation of Rules 17(a) and 18(b) wherein the Organization
argues a dual headquarters is a violation, we find no support in this record. The
Organization supports its argument by noting that Rule 17(a) states that: "The
Company shall designate a headquarters
pnjpl...
Such bulletin will show
lQcatim..."
(emphasis in original). Similarly, the Organization notes that Rule 18(a), which states
that "All new positions... will show location, title..." clearly was written in the singular
and does not permit the Carrier to designate multiple headquarter points or locations.
Form 1 Award No. 32186
Page 3 Docket No. MW-31911
97-3-94-3-247
The Board carefully considered the Organization's arguments and does not find
them persuasive. The Board read Rule 6(c). It is specific to Regular Relief
Assignments. Rule 6(c)(2) states in pertinent part that:
"Assignments for regular relief positions may on different days include
different starting times, duties and work locations ...."
The Board fords the Organization's other arguments, including its citation of Rule
21 (c) as not being applicable. Bulletin No. 5 herein disputed involved a relief
assignment. The Rule supra, is clearly applicable. For the above stated reasons, the
claim must be denied.
AWARD
Claim denied.
ORDER
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that
an award favorable to the Claimants) not be made.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 13th day of August 1997.