This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.
The Claimant held an October 2, 1997 seniority date as a Sectionman Truck Operator on Idaho Division Roster 6128. The Claimant's Truck Operator position which he was working was abolished at the close of shift on September 21, 1998. The claim contends that the Carrier violated the Agreement when it did not allow the Claimant to displace to a Sectionman Truck Operator position at Blackfoot, Idaho, on September 22, 1998.
The record discloses that during the summer prior to the incident forming the basis for this claim, the Carrier posted a Sectionman Truck Operator position at Blackfoot several times, but no bids were submitted and the Carrier could not fill the vacancy. Further, according to the Carrier, there was no one on the seniority list to force assign to that position. Rather than run short, the Carrier assigned a second Sectionman to the Blackfoot Section. The record sufficiently shows that at the time the Claimant attempted to bump into the Blackfoot Section, there was no Sectionman Truck Operator working on that section and no Sectionman Truck Operator position had been authorized, as that position which the Carrier was unable to fill had been replaced by the second Sectionman. The Claimant was advised that the position would be rebulletined and he could bid into it, but he was not allowed to bump into the gang because he was junior to the two incumbent Sectionmen. The Carrier rebulletined the position on September 24, 1998 and, according to the Organization, made a proper assignment effective October 1, 1998.
Thus, as the Carrier argues, the Claimant claims bumping rights to a position that did not exist. Rule 21(e) does permit employees whose positions have been abolished to ". . . displace junior employes in any seniority class in which seniority and qualifications are held." But here, at the time the Claimant attempted to bump into the Blackfoot Section, there was no position for the Claimant to bump into and the Claimant was junior to the other Sectionman on the Blackfoot Section. The claim therefore lacks merit. Form 1 Award No. 36828
The Organization"s reliance upon a prior resolution between the parties does not change the result. The prior resolution from August 11, 1986 concerned the ability of senior employees to displace junior employees filling temporary relief positions (". . . it was agreed that employees displaced from their regular assigned positions may exercise their seniority over any junior employee working in the group and class involved and they would no longer be prevented from displacing junior employees tilling temporary relief assignments . . . ."). That is not this case. No employee was filling a temporary relief assignment. Here, there just was no existing position for the Claimant to bump into.
Similarly, the Organization's argument that the August 16, 1993 Memorandum of Agreement required the Carrier to have a Sectionman Truck Operator assigned to a truck on the Blackfoot Section and that a Section Foreman was improperly assigned to operate the truck at Blackfoot is also not persuasive. The Carrier attempted to fill the Truck Operator position on several occasions and was unable to get bidders for the position. At the time the Claimant attempted to bump into the Blackfoot Section, there was no such position. The Agreement does not require the Carrier to reestablish a position it previously could not till through bidders (on several occasions) because months later an employee attempts to bump into that position. The Carrier promptly re-bulletined the position on September 24, 1998, which was tilled on October 1, 1998. Under the circumstances, that is all that can be required of the Carrier in this case.
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that an Award favorable to the Claimant(s) not be made.