Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
Award No. 45323 Docket No. MW-47958
24-3-NRAB-00003-230400
The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee Peter R. Meyers when award was rendered.
(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes Division – (IBT Rail Conference
(Lake Superior and Ishpeming Railroad Company STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
“Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:
The Agreement was violated when the Carrier assigned junior employe T. Hughes to the welder position headquartered at Marquette Ore Dock through Maintenance Department Assignment-Bulletin No. 5 effective January 17, 2022, instead of assigning senior applicant Mr. A. Ranta thereto (System File C-14- 22-290-01-L LSI).
As a consequence of the violation referred to in Part (1) above, Claimant A. Ranta shall be allowed all straight time and overtime opportunities lost on an ongoing/continuing basis.”
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.
This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.
Parties to said dispute were given due notice of hearing thereon.
The Organization filed the instant claim on behalf of the Claimant, alleging that the Carrier violated controlling Agreement Rules 3, 4, and 5 on January 17, 2022, when it assigned a junior employe to the welder position headquartered at Marquette Ore Dock through Maintenance Department Assignment-Bulletin No. 5 instead of assigning the Claimant to that position. The Carrier denied the claim.
The Organization contends that the instant claim should be sustained in its entirety because there is no dispute that the Claimant was the senior applicant for the welder position or that the Carrier awarded the position to a junior employe; because the Carrier had no valid reason to assign the junior employe to the welder position; because the Agreement does not provide that the Carrier can restrict an assignment from the senior employe making application for such assignment based on qualifications; because the bulletin in this case was not governed under Rules 4(A)(6), 4(A)(7), or 4(B) and the qualifications of the Claimant cannot be interpreted to restrict his ability to be awarded the position of welder based on his seniority under Rule 4(A)(2); and because the Carrier’s position would render Rule 5(c) meaningless. The Carrier contends that the instant claim should be denied in its entirety because Carrier has the prerogative to establish position qualifications; because Carrier historically has required specific qualifications for welding positions, and the Claimant did not meet those qualifications; because the Organization did not refute that the Claimant was not qualified; because the Organization failed to meet its burden of proof; and because the requested remedy is arbitrary and excessive.
The parties being unable to resolve their dispute, this matter came before this Board.
This Board has reviewed the record in this case, and we find that the Carrier did not violate the parties’ collective bargaining agreement when it did not assign the Claimant, who is a more senior employee, to the welder position on or about January 17, 2022. Therefore, this claim must be denied.
The record reveals that the Carrier has always required that people assigned to welder positions be qualified to hold that position. The Claimant lacked the necessary qualifications for that position. The Claimant had failed to secure “AWS 3G (Vertical) and AWS 4G (Overhead)” welding certifications which were needed for the assignment. The record reveals that neither the Claimant nor the Organization had ever challenged the necessity of those qualifications, nor did they dispute that the Claimant lacked those qualifications.
As this Board stated in Third Division Award No. 42893:
It is clear from the Agreement that the Carrier must follow seniority order when making assignments for overtime; however, for this type of work, they could only assign people who are qualified to perform the work. Since the two Claimants in this case were not qualified, this Board finds that the Carrier did not violate the parties’ Agreement when it assigned the two other employees who were indeed qualified to perform the work at issue.
For all of the above reasons, this claim must be denied.
Claim denied.
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that an Award favorable to the Claimant(s) not be made.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 23rd day of September 2024.