The instant claim arose due to the illness of Engineer Signal Construction R D. Lemaster. BRS-represented Signal Foreman R D. Price was temporarily promoted to fill the supervisor's position. Because the expected duration of the supervisor's illness was unknown at the time, the Signal Foreman position on 7X9, which Price vacated when he was promoted to the supervisory position, was advertised as : temporary position. The Cl:imant bid on and was awarded the temporary position. Price was eventusUy released from the supervisory position and displaced the Claimant on September 2, 2006 pursuant to the exercise of seniority right provided by Rule 37.
The Organization contends, first, that Price's vacancy should have been advertised as a permanent position and, second, if it had been awarded to the Claimant permanently, then Price could not have displaced the Claimant To the contrary, the Carrier contends that it was not required to advertise the vacancy as s permanent position. In addition, the Carrier contends that Price, who was senior to the Claimant, could have displaced the Claimant regardless of whether the Claimant was on a permanent or temporary position.
Needless to say, the record before the Board is quite unique and raises a highly technical issue of Agreement application. Based on our careful review of the record, we are compelled to find that a violation of the Agreement has not been established. Therefore, 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.
As noted the majority held that this case peas somehow "...unique and raises a highly technical issue of Agreement application." The record indicated that Mr. Price was temp6rarily promoted to fill a supervisor's position. As a result the Carrier placed his vacated position as a temporary position. The problem with Carrier's actions is that once Mr. Price obtained a management position - temporary or not - he was not covered by the Agreement and his former position should not have been held open for him to return.
The Carrier argued that his forma position was being held by a Prior employee and Mr. Price could have displaced the Clsimast regardless of whether the Claimam was on a permanent or temporary position. In a nut shell, Carrier argued `no harm no foul'. The problem with this logic is that once Mr. Price assumed a management position his only rights upon redaning to the craft would be to displace a junior employee. He has m rights to simply return to his former position.
The dilemma in accepting this logic could result in a situation where his temporary position was being held 6y a senior employee. In that case the Claimant could not simply return to his former position. The rationale for advertising these vacancies as permanent is simple and straight forward. It assures that employees holding management positions have no superior rights other than those emnaming fram the Agreement.
While the majority correctly held that the remedy in this instant case is moot, the fact is that the Agreement was violated.
Based on the foregoing the Organization takes exception to Carrier's `no harm no foul' attitude to a clear violation of the Agreement.