The instant claim arose when Mr. Crilley was deemed to be an automatic bidder for the cook position in dispute. Although Crilley was senior to the Claimant, the Organization asserted that he should not have had automatic bidding rights on the position. The cook position was in Work Zone 2 and Crilley was furloughed from Work Zone 4. To bolster its assertion, the Organization produced a copy of the 1994 seniority roster. The roster showed Crilley with a Zone 4 designation.
The Carrier asserted that Crilley had properly changed his workzone designation to Zone 2 within ten days of his furlough date. In support of this assertion, the Carrier produced a copy of a WFIS report that showed Crilley to have a Zone 2 designation prior to the advertising of the disputed cook position. Accordingly, Crilley was properly deemed to be an automatic bidder on the position, and his greater seniority entitled Crilley to the award.
The Organization requested a copy of Crilley's letter requesting to change his work zone designation from 4 to 2. The Carrier did not respond to the request. This raises questions about the credibility of the Carrier's assertion that Crilley properly requested the work zone change.
A statement from Mr. Crilley would have resolved all questions about whether he did or did not request a change in his work zone designation. Unfortunately, neither the Organization nor the Carrier provided such a statement. Thus, we are left with a conflict in material fact: Were Crilley's automatic bidding rights in Work Zone 2 or 4?
It is well settled that we have no authority to resolve conflicts in essential facts. As a result, when confronted with an irreconcilable conflict in material fact, we have no choice but to dismiss the claim. It matters not that there are credibility concerns surrounding the Carrier's evidence. Credibility is merely another question of fact that we have no power to resolve.