Form 1 NATIONAL ROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
Award No. 38233
Docket No. CL-38156
07-3-04-3-55

The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee Martin H. Malin when award was rendered.

(Transportation Communications International Union PARTIES TO DISPUTE:


STATEMENT OF CLAIM :





Form 1 Award No. 38233
Page 2 Docket No. CL-38156
07-3-04-3-55














Form 1 Award No. 38233
Page 3 Docket No. CL-38156
07 3-04-3-55
Colorado. The Carrier awarded the positions to employees
junior to Claimant which subsequently forced Claimant to an
unassigned status.







Form 1 Award No. 38233
Page 4 Docket No. CL-38156
07-3-04-3-55
situated who were allowed back into the craft and onto a Ticket
Clerk position for which they had no prior experience. On
February 27, and March 04, 2002, Claimant bid for twelve (12)
Ticket Clerk positions that were open for bid in Denver,
Colorado. The Carrier awarded the positions to employees
junior to Claimant which subsequently forced Claimant to an
unassigned status.











FINDINGS:

The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole 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.
Form I Award No. 38233
Page 5 Docket No. CL-38156


This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.




On February 20, 2002, the Carrier carried out a reduction-in-force by abolishing all 29 clerical positions in Denver, Colorado. The abolished positions included the full-time baggage person positions held by the Claimants. The Carrier reorganized the work among 12 Ticket Clerk positions and bulletined them. The Claimants bid on the positions, but were denied them in favor of employees with less seniority.


The Organization launched a broad side attack. During handling on the property, it argued that the Carrier improperly combined Baggage person and Ticket Clerk jobs into a single position. The Carrier relies on Rule 1(d) which provides:




We agree that the Carrier complied with Rule 1(d). The Organization has not cited any Agreement Rule that would otherwise control. Accordingly, we reject the Organization argument


The Organization further argues that the Carrier violated Article XI of the September 6, 1991 Mediation Agreement by its failure to hold a Ticket Clerk training class in Denver, Colorado, since the inception of the Rule. Article XI of the September 6, 1991 Mediation Agreement provides, in relevant part:







Form 1 Award No. 38233
Page 6 Docket No. CL-38156
07-3-04-3-55
Successful applicants for ticket clerk training will be paid the
rate of their former position while engaged in training, but no
more than the appropriate ticket clerk rate. Upon completion
of training, employees will be considered automatic bidders for
ticket clerk positions at their location and must remain on
ticket clerk positions for a one year period. Rule 8 will apply
from the date assigned the position. If extra boards are
established for ticket clerk positions, such ticket clerk positions
will be treated as regular assigned positions for the purpose of
this provision.







On its face, Article XI only requires that ticket clerk training classes be offered at New York, Washington, D.C., Philadelphia, Los Angeles, Chicago and Boston. There is no requirement that such training classes be offered at Denver. Accordingly, this portion of the Organization's attack must be rejected.
Form 1 Award No. 38233
Page 7 Docket No. CL-38156
07-3-04-3-55

The critical question before the Board concerns the interaction of Rules 5, 6 and 8. Rule 5 provides:









Form 1 Award No. 38233
Page 8 Docket No. CL-38156
07-3-04-3-55
(b) When it is evident that an employee will not qualify for a
position, after conference with the District Chairman, he may
be removed from the position before the expiration of thirty
(30) calendar days and be permitted to exercise seniority under
Rule 10. The appropriate organization representative will be
notified in writing the reason for the disqualification.
(c) Employees will be given full cooperation of the department
heads and others in their efforts to qualify."
The Carrier argues that the Claimants were not qualified for the Ticket Clerk
positions. It contends that the Claimants previously forewent opportunities to seek
Ticket Clerk training. It further relies on Article III, Section 8 of the September 2,
1994 Mediation Agreement, which provides:


On its face, Article 111, Section 8 provides a method of having sufficient fatness and ability. It appears to apply regardless of how tong ago the employee worked a regular assigned Ticket Clerk position. However, it does not purport to specify the exclusive means of establishing sufficient fitness and ability.


Rule 8(a) provides that an employee awarded a bulletined position is allowed thirty days in which to qualify. Rule 5's provision that seniority governs where fitness and ability is adequate and Rule 6's provision for the award of the position to the senior qualified bidder must be read together with Rule 8's allowance of 30 days to qualify once the position is awarded.


Numerous Awards have interpreted comparable language of other Agreements to the effect that fitness and ability do not require employees to be immediately qualified to step in and perform the job, but rather that they have such training, experience and character to raise a reasonable probability that they will be able to perform all duties of the position within a reasonable time. See, e.g., Third Division Awards 22357, 7847, 5348 and 3193. Rule 8 sets that reasonable time as 30

Form 1 Award No. 38233
Page 9 Docket No. CL-38156


calendar days, with further provision to disqualify an employee earlier if it is apparent that the employee will not qualify for the position.


The question whether an employee possesses sufficient fitness and ability necessitates a fact-based inquiry that can only be conducted on a case-by-case basis. In the instant case, the reasons the Carrier cited for not awarding the positions to the Claimants were their not having worked the Ticket Clerk position in the past and their not having taken advantage of prior opportunities to seek Ticket Clerk training. However, the Carrier has provided no specific reason to believe that the Claimants would be unable to perform the job within the 30-day qualifying period. The Carrier did not explain why the formal training or prior experience was necessary for these Claimants to have a reasonable probability of performing the job within 30 calendar days. Indeed, the record reflects that beginning in May 2002, the Interim Supervisor allowed the Claimants to post with existing Ticket Clerks and allowed them time off to travel to Chicago, Illinois, to take a rail reservation class, a class designed to upgrade the skills of existing Ticket Clerks to use the Carrier's new reservations system. There is no evidence of any dissatisfaction with their performance as Ticket Clerks. Apart from relying on a general view that employees lacking prior Ticket Clerk experience or not having gone through the formal Ticket Clerk training classes lacked sufficient fitness and ability, the Carrier offered no reason to believe that the Claimants could not have performed the job within the 30-day qualification period. We recognize that hindsight is always 20-20, but given that beginning in May 2002 the Claimants were allowed to perform as Ticket Clerks and apparently performed satisfactorily, calls ffor the Carrier to provide specific reasons why it believed the Claimants did not have a reasonable probability of performing the job within 30 days. Accordingly, we find that the Carrier violated Rule 5 in awarding the positions to junior bidders. We emphasize that our finding in confined to the particular record presented to us.


This case also raises questions of remedy. First, the claim seeks reimbursement for out of pocket medical expenses. During handling on the property and before the Board, the Carrier contended that the Agreement does not provide for such a remedy. The Organization never responded to this contention and failed to cite any authority for such a remedy. Accordingly, this aspect of the claim will be denied.

Form 1 Award No. 38233
Page 10 Docket No. CL-38156
                                              07-3-04-3-55


Second, as noted above, beginning in May 2002, the Claimants began working as Ticket Clerks. Accordingly, any backpay awarded to the Claimants must be offset by their actual earnings once they began working as Ticket Clerks.


                        AWARD


      Claim sustained in accordance with the Findings.


                          ORDER


This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that an award favorable to the Claimant(s) be made. The Carrier is ordered to make the Award effective on or before 30 days following the postmark date the Award is transmitted to the parties.


                      NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                      By Order of Third Division


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 18th day of July 2007.