On June 4, 1997, the Carrier advertised a Blacksmith position that was to begin work on June 30. The position was awarded to K. J. King, a B & B Helper. The Claimant, a B & B Helper with greater seniority than King, also bid on the position but was not assigned. The Organization filed the instant claim, relying in large part on Rule 22 (A), which provides:
The Carrier denied the claim on the basis that the position had been bulletined with the following qualification: "Applicants not holding Blacksmith seniority must have attended/successfully completed blacksmith training/testing program per notice of Feb. 12, 1987." The Carrier contended that the Claimant had not completed this training and therefore he was not qualified to be assigned the position. The Carrier further contended that King was the senior qualified applicant, and therefore he was properly awarded the job.
In further correspondence, the Organization pointed out that the Carrier had not re-advertised for the Blacksmith training since 1987 and thus the Claimant had been denied the opportunity to become qualified.
The Carrier responded that such argument constituted a modification of the original claim and that, in any event, the doctrine of ]aches should prevent the Organization from complaining about the failure to advertise Blacksmith training opportunities for the past ten years.
The Board carefully reviewed the somewhat unusual posture of this case. On its face, it seems clear that assignment to the Blacksmith position in question was predicated upon attendance and successful completion of a Blacksmith training program in accordance with a 1987 notice. Neither the Claimant nor King, the individual selected for Form 1 Award No. 36266
the position, attended the training offered in 1987, the record shows, and it has not been offered again.
It is equally clear from the record, however, that although the 1987 training information notice has been carried forward in successive job postings, it has not been applied as written since that time. Instead, the notice has served to inform employees of the qualification requirements for that job. After 1987, employees interested in working as Blacksmiths have satisfied the qualification requirement without attending a Carriersponsored course, by obtaining training elsewhere. The Organization concedes that King, the successful bidder in this case, was one of those employees.
Under these circumstances, we find that the variance between the posted bid qualifications and those actually considered for the position do not constitute a fatal flaw, particularly because no protest has been forthcoming from the Organization for over a decade. Moreover, there was no notice defect. Unlike Public Law Board No. 3460, Award 7, relied upon by the Organization, job bidders in this case had specific notice of the qualification requirement prior to bidding on the particular job involved.
The Claimant was not qualified for the Blacksmith position. In contrast to the junior bidder, the Claimant did not have the necessary qualifications in order to properly exercise his seniority for the bid job in accordance with Rule 22 (A). Accordingly, the claim must be denied.
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that an Award favorable to the Claimant(s) not be made.