PARTIES TO DISPUTE

BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYES

AND

CSR TRANSPORTATION INC.


STATEMENT OF CLAIM
    1. Claimant R. M. Lee be allowed to return to work with all seniority

        on the W&A seniority district that he would have acquired had he

        not been pulled out of service on May 15, 1986. Also, be paid for

        all time that he would have been able to work in accordance with

        his seniority.


    2. R. Goettie be allowed to return to work with all seniority on

        the W&A seniority district that he would have acquired had he

        not been pulled out of service on May 13, 1985. Also, be

        paid for all time that he would have been able to work in

    accordance with his seniority. .

    3. R. T. Eason be allowed to return to work with all seniority

        on the W&A seniority district that he would have acquired had

        he not been pulled out of service on May 13, 1985. Also, be

        paid for all time that he would have been able to work in

        accordance with his seniority.


FINDINGS
On March 29, 1985, the above-named Claimants were furloughed from Carrier's Mechanical Department at Waycross, Georgia. The Claimants applied for re-employment and were re-hired as Track Repairmen on Rail Gang 6ND9, headquartered in Chattanooga, Tennessee in April 1985. Claimants Goettie and Eason were notified on May 13, 1985 that their applications for reemployment had been rejected due to unsatisfactory work performance. Claimant Lee was informed on June 3, 1985 that his application had also been
                                                  14(3e-(D


rejected for the same reason. The Organization filed claims on behalf of the Claimants on June 10 and June 18, 1985, seeking their reinstatement to service on the basis that Carrier rejected improperly their application without affording them the opportunity of an investigation. The claims were denied by Carrier on the grounds that the Claimants had no right to a hearing since their applications were rejected during their probationary period.

 The issue to be decided in this dispute is whether Carrier violated the Agreement by removing the Claimants from service without affording them the opportunity for a hearing concerning their removal.

 The position of the Organization is that Carrier violated Rule 27 of the Agreement by failing to provide the Claimants with a hearing following their removal. The Organization contends that the Claimants should not have had to go through the probationary period once their applications for reemployment were accepted, since their previous assignments came under the same road and organization. The Organization therefore contends that the Claimants should not have been subjected to the probationary period and accordingly were entitled to a hearing concerning their removal.

 Carrier contends that once the Claimants were furloughed and subsequently applied for re-employment, they lost all prior seniority rights held under the Agreement. Carrier maintains that the Claimants were told when re-applying for employment as Track Repairmen that they would be subject to the 60-day probationary period like any new employee. Carrier further

                            2

                                                  H l3 8 -0


maintains that since the Claimants were removed during the probationary period, they had no right to an investigation concerning their removal. Carrier cites Article XI, Section 1 covering "probationary period" to establish that only written confirmation of an applicant's rejection is required. Carrier contends that the Claimants were removed for poor job performance and were so informed; and that no further explanation was required under the probationary period rule.

 Finally, Carrier maintains that no hearing was required under the discipline provisions of the Agreement, since the Claimants were never "disciplined" by Carrier, but rather merely removed during their probationary period. Carrier cites the fact that all three Claimants still held seniority in the Carman's craft as evidence that they were not "disciplined" within the meaning contemplated in the Agreement.

 After review of the record, the Board finds that the Organization's claim must be denied.

    The evidence of record establishes that the Claimants were furloughed


in March 1985 and subsequently applied for re-employment in April 1985 as -
 Track Repairmen. Having re-applied, the Claimants were aware of the fact
 that they would be subject to a probationary period pursuant to Section 1 of
 Article XI. The probationary period provision only requires Carrier to give
 a written explanation for rejection of an applicant. Lt does not require
 that Carrier afford the applicant a hearing. The only other basis upon
 which the Claimants could claim a right to investigation would be if

                            3

                                                  LJ138-~


disciplinary action had been taken by Carrier. However, there is no evidence that any disciplinary action was taken by Carrier. To the contrary, the Claimants' status as Carmen remained unaffected by Carrier's actions. Carrier merely rejected the Claimants' applications for reemployment during the probationary period. Absent evidence of bad faith or abuse of discretion, we cannot find that Carrier acted improperly in removing the Claimants during that period. Accordingly, we find no support in the Agreement for the Organization's position that a hearing was required.

 AWARD
    Claim denied.


                          ~ ,l i' ~'l~Si


                        Neutral Member


                        Carrier Member


                        Orga ' ation Member


DATE: ~i9 g8

 4