(a) The Carrier violated the Rules Agreement effective February 1, 1982, particularly Rule 4, Section 2, when it prohibited Claimant Russell Irwin to displace junior employees in the exercise of his contractual right on December 20, 1982.
(c) Claimant Irwin be reimbursed any loss of wages as a result of the Carrier's failure to allow him to displace said junior employees on December 20, 1982.
Upon the whole record and all the evidence, after hearing, the Board finds that the parties herein are Carrier and Employees within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as amended, and that this Board is duly constituted by agreement and has jurisdiction of the parties and of the subject matter.
positions held by any one of three junior Employees due to the Carrier's -determination that the Claimant was not qualified for the positions involved in his request.
Under date of February 4, 1983, the Claimant filed three (3) separate claims in connection with the carrier's disqualification action which have been presented in Cases Nos. 2, 3, and 4 . This dispute involves Case No. 3, relating to Mr. A1 Amburg, who, at the time of the attempted displacement, held the position of Assistant Foreman on the Selkirk Sub-division. Case No. 2, relating to Mr. Frank Fisherauer, incumbent of the position of Track Foreman/Switch Inspector, has been disposed of by a denial ruling in Case No. 2, Award No. 2. Case No. 4, relating to Mr. Vincent Ferrero, Boom Truck Operator, is considered in subsequent Award No. 4.
The record in this case reflects that the incumbent of the Assistant Foreman position on the Selkirk Sub-division held by Mr. Amburg, had duties which included the preparation of payroll timesheets; that the Claimant was offered the opportunity to demonstrate his ability to apply the new payroll accounting system that had been implemented in December 1982; and that the Claimant refused to undergo this test.
The Organization asserts that the Carrier's proffer of a test in these circumstances was improper, because the duty of keeping, recording, and turning in time is performed by the Gang Foreman, not the Assistant Foreman: and that the Claimant should 2
P.L. Board No. 3781 - Award No. 3, Case No. 3After due study of the foregoing and the whole record, inclusive of the parties' arguments in support of their respective positions in the case, the Board concludes that the record does not establish that the Carrier's disqualification of the Claimant from the position of Assistant Foreman was unreasonable or arbitrary. If indeed the Gang Foreman, not the Assistant Foreman, performed the duty of administering the payroll accounting system, the posture of the case would be different. However, as the record stands, the claim that the Foreman had the duty of administering the payroll accounting system is a mere allegation: it is not supported by credible, persuasive evidence and thus there is no basis for concluding that the Carrier required the Claimant to possess a qualification involving payroll accounting which did not apply to the position of Assistant Foreman.
was the single factor standing qualified or not qualified for the Claimant refused the Carundergo a test to demonstrate