Upon the whole record and all the evidence, after September 23, 1988 hearing in Washington, D. C., 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.
Stratsburg, New York on December 4, 1984, because he did not possess a class 2 drivers license and instead, awarded the position to a Junior B & B Mechanic who possessed a Class 2 license. At the time of the claim, Claimant Wheeler was in furlough status.
The Carrier asserts that the determination of the qualifications for a position is a Carrier perrogative, and that the disputed drivers license requirement was an appropriate requirement for the B & B Mechanic position in question.
The record indicates that the Class 2 drivers license was not required prior to Gang 402's use of Boom Trucks which began in July 1984. The Carrier's reasoning for Management's decision to require the drivers license is reflected in a Carrier letter dated Kay 24, 1985, reading in pertinent part as follows:
In these circumstances the Board concludes that the Carrier had opportunity to give reasonable advance notice that Gang members would be required to possess a Class 2 drivers license, and opportunity as well to phase in the requirement after the newly advertised positions were awarded. Accordingly, the Carrier's failure to take these measures to assure opportunity for all affected Employees to apply for the license, is found unreasonable and arbitrary and the claim will be sustained on this basis. For a similar ruling see Award NQ, 16. Special Hoard of Adjustment No. 956, Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way and New Jersey Transit Rail Operations (January 30, 1986).
In regard to remedy the Board notes that the original grievance filing of January 8, 1985 requested award of the position and a seniority date of January 2, 1985 on the Inter-Regional Roster. This request will be sustained. The subsequent request of July 23, 1985 for wage loss was made in the appeal to the Senior-Director and not to the Chief Regional Engineer within sixty (60) days from occurrence on which claim is based, as required by Rule 23. Consequently, the claim for wage loss does not comply with the governing procedure and it cannot be sustained.
For the reasons indicated in the foregoing, and based on the record as a whole, the claim will be sustained to the extent of the remedy requested in the grievance filing of January 8, 1985.