(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.
any one of three positions held by 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. 4, relating to Claimant's request to displace Mr. Vincent Ferrero from the position of Boom Truck Operator on the Selkirk Sub-division. Case No.2, relating to claimant's attempted displacement to the position of Track Foreman/Switch Inspector, and Case No. 3, relating to Claimant's attempted displacement to the position of Assistant Foreman, have been considered and disposed of in denial Awards Nos. 2 and 3.
The record reflects that in the handling on the propertyhe had indicated that he did not want to displace Mr. Ferrero from the Boom Truck position: but rather, wanted to bump Mr. Ferrero as a Trackman, which latter position Mr. Ferrero did not hold on the date in question.
The organization's submission challenges the accuracy of all of the Carrier's fact assertions except the assertion that the claimant wanted to bump Mr. Ferrero from the position of Trackman, and not from the position of Boom Truck Operator. However, the organization's concession in this regard is based upon the contention that bumping to the Trackman position vas the proper procedure in the existing circumstances, because the incumbent of the target position, Mr. Fererro, did not hold a Boom Truck Operator position, but instead, held a Trackman position and from time to tine operated the Boom Truck and received the Driver's rate under - the "Casual Driver" provision of the Agreement only when he
performed a prescribed amount of service on the Boom Truck.After due study of the foregoing and of the whole record, inclusive of the parties' arguments in support of their respective positions in the case, the Board concludes that although the argument in Claimant's behalf has been vigorously advanced in themost plausible manner possible by his representatives, in the final analysis, it cannot be said that the facts necessary to support the argument are established by the record. The Board observes that we have in this case a record which presents anu.;.ber of conflicting fact questions, but which, in terms of
concrete factual information, is too sparse and sketchy to provide a basis for resolving the fact conflicts. In short, this is a case in which the claim would stand in a much stronger posture if the fact assertions made in support of the claim were established by the record, but, since these facts cannot be said to have been established on the instant record, the claim will be dismissed for lack of the requisite fact support.
Accordingly, on the whole record, the Board concludes that the confronting record does not establish the Carrier's action to be violative of the Agreement and accordingly, in line with the denial rulings in Awards No. 2 and No. 3, this claim will be dismissed.