Public Law Board No. 3794'
PARTUTIE-S Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
DISPUTE: . - and
Seaboard System Railroad
STATEMENT 1. The'disqualification of Mr. E. C. Nelson as
CLAM: machine helper on Force 5565 was improper and with
out just. and sufficient cause [System File P/R Nel
son, E. C./12-8 (82-1152) K2].
' 2. As a consequence of 'the aforesaid violation
' (a) Mr. E. C,,.Nelson's personal record shall be
' cleared of all reference to said disqualification;
(b) Mr. E. C. Nelson shall be allowed a machine
helper's seniority date as of December 28, 198l.and
he shall be allowed to promptly exercise such senior
ity; .
(c) Mr. E. C. Nelson shall, subsequent to the ex
ercise of seniority referred to in Part 2(b) hereof,
be allowed to exercise his seniority on any bulletined
position in Rank 4 -=Machine Operator to which his
helper's seniority would have entitled;
(d) Mr. E. C. Nelson shall be allowed a seniority
' date in Rank 4 as of the same date other employes
were promoted to a Ran.k 4 position between the date
. . .
3-7q
1/
0
2
- of his disqualification as machine helper and the
Rank 4 - Machine Operator's seniority date referred
to in Part 2(c) hereof;
._ (c) Mr-. E. C. Nelson shall~be compensated for all
wage loss suffered.
FINDINGS: Claimant, a trackman with a March 22, 1973 seniority
date, was assigned on December 28, 1981, subject to
his ability to qualify, to the position of Helper on
T&S Force 5565, a highly mechanized production gang
with timbering and surfacing components.
According to Carrier, the Helper position had for
years been utilized as a training position.towards qualification in
such higher classifications as machine operator or foreman. It was
expected, Carrier maintains, that employees assigned to Helper positions
would eventually relieve machine operators and assistant foremen when
necessary in the surfacing component.
In Carrier's view, claimant was given a fair chance
to demonstrate his fitness for the position of Helper, but failed to
show satisfactory progress in operating machines on which he would
eventually have to be qualified. He was given an additional 30 days
after the regular 60-day training period had elapsed, to qualify but,
in Carrier's judgment, he continued to show no relevant progress toward
qualifying as a Helper. He was accordingly disqualified and returned
to his position as Trackman.
Petitioner insists that claimant satisfactorily
served as Helper during the trial period.and that there was no valid
Award No. 8 3
Case No. 13
basis for requiring him to show progress towards qualifying in the
much higher rated positions of machine operator and assistant foreman.
' The assignment to Helper was a promotion for claimant
and it is well settled that, where a promotionr.is involved, Carrier
possesses the right to determine fitness and ability. There is insufficient evidence-in the record to show that Carrier's appraisal of
claimant's ability to fill the Helper position in Force 5565 was arbitrary and capricious. Nor has it been established that Carrier did
not require other Helpers in that 'Force to perform the same type of
work required of claimant or that the particular duties in question
were unreasonable requirements.' .
In that posture of the record and since Rule 12 of
the Agreement'provides that promotion shall be based on ability as
well as seniority, no sound basis is perceived for interfering with
Carrier's decision.
AWARD: Claim denied.
Adopted at Jacksonville., Florida,
'3
02 1985.
~l
fia M. Wes
o
, airman
rier Member Employee Member