Form 1 Award No. 40084The 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.
Claimant C. Gatewood established and holds a service date of September 2, 1975 in the Maintenance Way Department with a seniority date of September 13, 1983 as a Machine Operator Common.
On March 27, 2003, pursuant to Vacancy Bulletin No. 3801, the Carrier bulletined the position of Truck Operator Common operating a boom truck (pay rate of $18.67 per hour) headquartered at Eagle Grove, Iowa. On the same date, by Vacancy Bulletin No. 3802, the Carrier also bulletined a Class "B" Machine Operator position operating a brush cutting machine (pay rate of $18.36 per hour) headquarted at Des Moines, Iowa. It is uncontested that the Claimant placed a bid on both positions and designated the Boom Truck Operator as his first choice and the Machine Operator as his second choice. When the positions were assigned on April 4, 2003, the Claimant was awarded his second choice and junior employee J. Foth was assigned to the Boom Truck Operator position. Foth's Machine Operator Common seniority date is April 9, 1999.
According to the Organization, although the Claimant was senior to Foth and placed a proper bid on the vacant Boom Truck Operator position, the Carrier improperly assigned junior employee Foth to the position in question. The Organization claims that as a result of the Carrier's actions, the Claimant lost wages ($.31 per hour) and incurred undue and unreimbursed personal expenses for each claim date, totaling 27 hours of time and the mileage (1,358 miles x $.36 per mile = $488.88) accrued driving his personal vehicle between his residence in Eagle Grove, Iowa, and his work location as a Machine Operator. Form 1 Award No. 40084
Conversely, the Carrier takes the position that the Organization cannot meet its burden of proof in this matter. It contends that while it is uncontested that the Claimant was senior to Foth, the Claimant was not qualified for the Boom Truck Operator position because he failed to pass the look-out portion of his required Rules exams. Thus, while the Claimant was the senior bidder, he was not the senior qualified bidder and for safety reasons, the Carrier had the right to not award him the Boom Truck Operator position.
The Board concludes that the Organization has been unable to meet its burden to prove that the Claimant should have been awarded the Boom Truck Operator position. The Board finds that passing the look-out test is reasonably related to the position of Boom Truck Operator. The look-out requirement is an impost part of the on-track safety qualifications established as a joint effort between the Carrier, the Organization and the FRA. Thus, we cannot find that the Carrier acted unreasonably in denying the Claimant the Boom Truck Operator position.
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that an Award favorable to the Claimant(s) not be made.