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.
The facts indicate that on July 10, 2008, the Carrier advertised a Group 27 System Welding Foreman position on Gang 7813, with an on-line headquarters, in the vicinity of Superior, Wisconsin. No bids were received from any employees holding seniority in the specific class involved (i.e., Group 27 System Welding Foreman). The Claimant and junior employee M. Gigous both made application for the assignment, although neither held seniority in the aforementioned classification. On August 2, 2008, Gigous was assigned to the position.
It is the position of the Organization that Rule 19(b) clearly states that if applicants do not have seniority in the group and class, the positions will be filled from qualified employees in the other groups of the Sub-department and "Where ability and qualifications are sufficient, seniority will prevail." The Organization argued that there is no dispute that the Claimant had superior seniority as a System Welder. It further asserted that he met the qualifications from his prior job experiences and should have been assigned. It concluded that the Carrier erred when it assigned the junior employee rather than the Claimant, and it requested that the claim be sustained as presented.
It is the Carrier's position that the assignment of Gigous to the position in question rather than the Claimant was correct because he had previously been assigned to Foreman and Assistant Foreman positions, whereas the Claimant had no previous Foreman experience. It argued that because the grieved position is responsible for the daily operation of the gang and, accordingly, it required a great deal of experience, knowledge and responsibility, the Carrier determined that Gigous had the requisite fitness and ability, whereas the Claimant had not shown those qualifications. The Carrier also relied upon Rule 19(b) and, in particular, the last sentence which states: "Management will be the judge with respect to positions covered by this section." It closed by asking that the claim remain denied. Form 1 Award No. 41058
The record is clear that the Carrier awarded the Foreman position on Gang 7813 to Gigous even though he had less seniority than the Claimant did. Rule 19(b) states the following:
On the property, the Carrier stated that system gangs are high production gangs and the Foreman position is key in allowing high production, which was not disputed by the Organization. In this instance, the record reveals that junior employee Gigous' past experience as a Foreman and Assistant Foreman provided him the requisite fitness and ability, whereas the Claimant's inexperience in a leadership role did not give him the necessary fitness and ability to oversee a high production gang. The Board finds and holds that the Carrier was within its rights to select the junior employee rather than the Claimant and there was no violation of the Agreement.
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that an Award favorable to the Claimant(s) not be made.