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.
This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.
In this dispute the Organization takes exception to the Carrier's rejection of the Claimant's bid for an Assistant Foreman position at a time when he had not yet completed his basic signal training program. The claim, submitted September 1, 2000, principally asserts a violation of Rule 53 - Assignments to New Positions or Vacancies and Rule 55 - No Valid Bids Received.
The record reflects that on April 8, 2000, the Claimant submitted his application for several, different Assistant Foreman positions advertised for bid. On April 20, 2000, the Carrier announced that there had been "No Qualified Bids Received" on those positions.
On the Claimant's behalf the Organization asserts that as ". . . the available senior assistant signalman with a minimum of one year of signal service," he should have been awarded one of the bulletined jobs.
In response, the Carrier states that pursuant to the specific language of Rule 1, Note (a) it maintains the right to assign Assistant Signal Foremen ". . . with due consideration for seniority, fitness and ability . . . ." In this instance, it says, the Claimant was not appointed because he lacked sufficient fitness and ability. Specifically, the positions applied for entail the supervising of other employees performing tasks for which the Claimant has had no training. Having never worked as a Class I employee, completed only one-half of his required training and never pre-qualified for these positions in accordance with Rule 1; the Claimant was properly found unqualified for these positions.
Careful review of the record indicates that the Carrier set forth a plausible prima facie case for disqualification. As established by plentiful Third Division Form 1 Award No. 37898
precedent, the Agreement plainly affords the Carrier latitude in making the selections at issue and does not require that it fill a supervisory position with an employee it deems to be unprepared for such work. As of June 8, 2000, the Claimant had completed only two sessions of signal school. Additionally, he failed to avail himself of the opportunities set forth in Rule 1 of the Agreement for demonstrating his qualifications by requesting to sit for the applicable test.
Finding no record evidence rebutting the Carrier's contention that the Claimant lacked the requisite fitness and ability to hold an Assistant Foreman position, we conclude that the Organization failed to meet its burden of establishing that an Agreement violation occurred.
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that an Award favorable to the Claimant(s) not be made.