(Transportation Communications International Union PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whale record and all the evidence, finds that:
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.
On May 12, 2000, the Claimant was displaced from his Los Angeles, California, clerical position. He exercised seniority to Position No. 133, Assistant Buyer, held by junior employee M. Pefley. As background, the Claimant was advised that he was denied displacement rights over the junior employee. The Claimant made a formal request for an Unjust Treatment Hearing. The request was summarily rejected by the Carrier based on the premise it had properly assigned the junior employee to the Assistant Buyer position and that, accordingly, the Claimant's case was without merit. Following a decision in Third Division Award 36577, which ruled that an Unjust Treatment Hearing should have been afforded the Claimant pursuant to the Agreement, an Unjust Treatment Hearing was held on August 19, 2003.
By letter dated September 24, 2003, the Carrier denied that the Claimant had been unjustly treated. The major elements of that denial were stated as follows:
After review of all the substantively complex issues in this case, the Board finds that ultimately, the decision rests upon whether Pefley held the proper credentials for the position. The Board notes that each side has positions on the past claim, its meaning, and procedural irregularities, but the Board holds as follows.
Distilled to its essence, this claim is about the fitness and ability of an employee to hold the position of Assistant Buyer. The Carrier's requirements for the position were clearly stated in the Bulletin. The Carrier has the right to set qualifications for the position. In this specific case, such qualifications included working in the Supply Department for at least one year within the last three years prior to application. The Board notes that this requirement has been in existence for many years.
We reject the Organization's arguments that the Carrier's requirements are improper. The Carrier has the right to set reasonable requirements. Nothing in the record demonstrates that having one year of experience in the Supply Department during the last three years before application is unreasonable.
The Board notes that the Claimant had not worked one year in the Supply Department within the last three years prior to his application. He, therefore, did not meet the qualifications for the position. This would end the dispute, except for the fact that the case turns on Pefley's qualifications. The Organization argues that Pefley was given the job without working one full year in the past three years prior to her appointment. If this is the case, then the Board must look at the full qualifications of both the Claimant and Pefley.
By all the evidence of record, if neither had the requisite time qualification, then the Claimant was the more qualified. In fact, his seniority, (approximately 12 years of past experience in the Supply Department) as well as his typing experience make his Form 1 Award No. 38103
case supportable. The threshold factual dispute is clearly over Pefley's qualifications. The Board finds that the case turns on the Organization's evidence and testimony. The Board reviewed Pefley's notarized document which states:
Our careful review leads to the conclusion that Pefley indicates that she "might not meet that requirement." Further, the Organization's major argument is that:
The Board finds that those records lack clarity for purposes of factual proof. They do not constitute the type of evidence necessary to contradict the Carrier's rebuttal statements. On more than one occasion the Carrier responded directly to this argument and denied that Pefley lacked the minimal qualifications. The Carrier argued that she worked in the Supply Department and was " assigned and compensated" for the necessary time requirement. The Carrier denied that Pefley engaged in non-relevant duties or performed duties not related to her position. Form 1 Award No. 38103
The Board is convinced by the full record that the Organization failed to provide the requisite proof to document that Pefley failed to satisfy the experience requirement of the bulletin for the position. The Organization did not prove that the Claimant worked outside the Supply Department during the disputed one year, or that her activities after the injury were not related to her position in the Supply Department. Accordingly, the claim must be denied for lack of proof.
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that an Award favorable to the Claimant(s) not be made.