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.
On July 3, 1995, Claimant, who has accumulated more than 20 years of service with the Carrier, sought to displace one of the Head Clerks at the Carrier's City of Industry, California intermodal operations per Rule 41(a). The incumbent Head Clerk Form 1 Page 2
Employee covered by these rules shall be in line for promotion. Promotions, assignments and displacements shall be based on seniority, fitness and ability; fitness and ability being sufficient, seniority shall prevail.
Since Claimant held the greater seniority than the incumbent Head Clerk, the issue herein is whether Claimant possessed sufficient fitness and ability so that she could have mastered the position of Head Clerk within a reasonable amount of time.
Evidence at the Unjust Treatment Hearing adduced that the position of Head Clerk oversees employees in intermodal operations on a particular shift. The Hub Manager pointed out that the Head Clerk must know 41 different computer formats and must have extensive experience with intermodal operations. In essence, the Head Clerk must be able to perform virtually every, if not all, jobs at the Hub.
Claimant relied on her many years of experience as a Chief Clerk Crew Dispatcher and Interlocking Operator to support her assertion that she could have qualified for the Head Clerk job within a reasonable period of time. Claimant had very little intermodal operations experience. Some years ago, she worked an intermodal position wherein she checked trucks for paperwork, seals and loads. The Hub Manager Form 1 Page 3
suggested that Claimant displace to a position lower in the intermodal hierarchy than Head Clerk so that she could learn intermodal operations and thus, attain the fitness and ability to later bid on or displace to a Head Clerk position. Claimant declined because she wanted to exercise her seniority to a high rated position.
The Carrier has the discretion to determine an employee's fitness and ability so long as it does not abuse its discretion. In this case, Claimant has a plethora of railroad experience but unfortunately, only a minuscule of her experience was in the intermodal field, which is an area very different from usual railroad operations. Also, she was involved in intermodal work many years ago. Intermodal operations are dynamic. They have substantially changed over the years so that Claimant's experience is worthless.
It is true that lack of experience is usually one of many factors that the Carrier should take into account when evaluating an employee's fitness and ability but sometimes, little or no experience can manifest that an employee is not fit and able to do the job. In this case, Claimant would have to master a quasi-supervisory position which oversees all operations across an entire shift. Claimant would be responsible for directing employees and insuring smooth operations. Given her dearth of intermodal experience, it is highly unlikely that she could qualify for the position within a reasonable period of time. Therefore, under the peculiar circumstances of this case, we find that the Carrier did not abuse its discretion when it determined that Claimant lacked the fitness and ability to fill the position as Head Clerk. She could not learn all the complex components of the Head Clerk position within a reasonable time period.