This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.
The Claimant was disqualified from his position as a Ballast Regulator Operator. An Unjust Treatment Hearing was held without a change in the outcome.
The record shows that the Claimant was disqualified after it was brought to the attention of the Carrier on January 11, 1995 that there was an approximate six-mile section of track with poorly dressed ballast that was not spread to standard by the Claimant; Track Inspectors, the Roadmaster and the Division Engineer's office were critical of the work performed by the Claimant's gang; the Claimant had sufficient training for the six-day period he had worked as an Operator. As evidenced by the poorly spread ballast, the Claimant did not perform adequately. The Claimant's replacement had no problems correctly spreading the ballast.
Qualification, fitness and ability to perform a job are determinations to be made by the Carrier, subject only to limited review by the Board as to whether the Carrier was arbitrary in its determination. Based on the developed record, we cannot find that the Carrier was arbitrary in its determination to disqualify the Claimant. Given the problems exhibited by the Claimant in the performance of his job, a rational basis existed for the Carrier's determination to disqualify the Claimant.
The Organization's arguments that the Claimant was improperly disqualified go to whether the decision made by the Carrier was a correct one. At best, the Organization's arguments make the Carrier's decision a debatable one. But, showing that a determination was debatable, even wrong, does not equate with a demonstration that the decision was arbitrary. A rational basis exists for the Carrier's determination. That determination was therefore not arbitrary. In light of the limited review standard, that is as far as this inquiry can go.
The Organization's procedural arguments have been considered and do not change the result.