PUBLIC LAW BOARD N0. 4431
Parties BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYES
to the Case Nos. 12
Dispute
Vs.
. . 13
' BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD COMPANY'
STATEMENT OF CLAIM
Case No. 12
That the Claimant be made whole; that the discipline be set aside and removed from his personal
record; that his Grinder Operator date of 3/12/86
be returned to the District 18 Seniority Roster;
and that he be compensated for his lost wages
owing to his being forced to return to his former
position as a B&B Helper, as well as any losses
incurred while furloughed and deprived of any
future opportunity to work.
Case No. 13
That the Claimant be made whole; that the disqualification be set aside and removed from his personal
record; that his Grinder Operator date of 7/8/86
be returned to the District 18 Seniority Roster; and
that he be compensated for his lost wages owing to
his being forced to return to his former position as
a B&B Helper, as well as any losses incurred while
furloughed and deprived of any future opportunities
to work.
4q31-a
13
-2-
FINDINGS
Claimant G. P. Lewis began service with Carrier on September 25,
1974, as a B&B Helper. Since that time, he has been promoted to Second
Class Carpenter and First Class Carpenter, and occasionally used as
a Shop Carpenter and Relief B&B Foreman. Claimant was elected President
of BMWE Lodge 289 in Livington, Montana. He was thereafter elected
Local Chairman. In 1985, he had some difficulty with Carrier in his
capacity as Local Chairman. He was disciplined for conducting Union
business on Company time and for making critical comments about Carrier
to the local press.
In April 1985, Claimant was promoted to a Group 3 Machine Operator
and subsequently disqualified. In July 1985, he was assigned as a
Regional Gang Cook and also disqualified. On March 12, 1986, Claimant
was promoted to a Grinder Operator position and disqualified. On July
8, 1986, he was again placed on a Grinder Operator job and disqualified.
Claimant protested both Grinder disqualifications and requested an unjust
treatment hearing in each instance. Those hearings were held and at
the conclusion of each, Claimant remained disqualified. Claims were
filed that were denied at each level of the procedure. Both claims
were ultimately appealed to this Board for consideration. Since both
claims present essentially the same argument, the Board has decided
to combine the claims and review them together.
L4431-
iz~13
-3-
This Board has reviewed the extensive record of both claims and
we are compelled to conclude that Carrier had a right to judge Claimant
as disqualified on both occasions. We see nothing in either record
that supports the Organization's argument that Claimant was discriminated against because he was a Union official. Neither does the Board
find anything in the record to indicate that Claimant did not receive
a fulland fair hearing. The truth appears to be that even though
Claimant was a good Carpenter, he did not have the skills necessary
to grind rail.
This Board does not have authority to substitute its judgment
for Carrier in a skill and ability matter. We see no reason for Carrier
to disqualify Claimant if in fact he was a competent grinder. It makes
no sense. Claimant appears to be an employe who has had considerable
difficulty qualifying outside his craft. He was disqualified as a
Machine Operator, a Cook, and twice as a Grinder. This Board has no
power to direct that Carrier grant Claimant an opportunity to qualify
unless Claimant's seniority rights allow him to bid on a position.
The Board can only suggest that the next time Claimant bids a job, Carrier
be especially sensitive to his need to qualify and work with him to that
end. If, however, he cannot properly perform the job, Carrier has the
right, if not the obligation, to disqualify him.
AWARD
The claim is denied.
R. E. Dennis, Neutral Member
. G. Glover, Employe Member M. M. fiimberman, Carrier Member
Date of Adoption