PUBLIC LAW BOARD N0. 4431
BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYES
VS.
: Case No. 3
BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD COMPANY
STATEMENT OF CLAIM
1. The Agreement was violated when, beginning May 8, 1986,
the Carrier assigned Group 3 Machine Operator
J.E. Resutek to the position of Group 1 Machine Operator
(High Rail Truck Crane BX15-0023) headquartered at
Tacoma, Washington, instead of assigning the Claimant,
who was senior, qualified and available thereto.
2. As a result of the aforementioned violation,
...
we request that the position of Group
1 machine operator High Rail Truck Crane
X15-0023 be assigned to Claimant D.J. Kick.
We also request that Claimant be allowed
the difference between Group 1 machine
operator rate of pay and the rate of pay
of the positions to which he has been
assigned since 5-8-86. We also request
that Claimant be allowed any and all
overtime worked by junior employe
J.E. Resutek since that date.
We further request that Claimant be
allowed a Roster 1 Group 1 machine
operator seniority date of 5-8-86 and
be so listed on the appropriate
seniority rosters. We also request
that J.E. Resutek not be allowed a
Roster 1 Group 1 machine operator
seniority date as a result of this ___
erroneous assignment. -
2
y431- 3
OPINION OF THE BOARD
Claimant D.J. Kick holds seniority as a Group 3 Machine
Operator in the Roadway Equipment Highway Department. His
date is July 5, 1979. J.E. Resutek holds seniority as a
Group 3 Machine Operator. His date is August 6, 1980. J.E.
Resutek also holds seniority as a Group 2 Machine Operator.
Claimant does not. In April 1986, Carrier solicitated bids
for a Group I Machine Operator position. Sixteen bids were
received. No bidder held Group 1 seniority. J.E. Resutek
was the most senior Group 2 Machine operator who bid the
Group 1 position. He was awarded it on that basis.
Petitioner contends that since no Group 1 Operators bid
the posted job, it should have gone to the most senior
bidder from all other seniority rosters, not the most senior
bidder on the Group 2 roster.
Carrier contends that in similar situations, in the
Seattle Region, it has always awarded jobs as it did on this
occasion. It considers the promotion ladder for Machine
Operators to be Group 3 to Group 2 and Group 2 to Group 1.
The complexity, the size of the machines, and skill required
to operate them dictates such a progression.
Petitioner relies on Rule 22 A for its support. That
Rule reads as follows:
-3-
yN~-3
RULE 22. ASSIGNMENT PROCEDURE
A. Each new position or vacancy
bulletined as provided in Rule 21 will
be assigned to the senior qualified
applicant who holds seniority on the
seniority roster from which the position
in question is filled and in the rank of
that position. In the absence of such
applicants, the senior qualified
applicant in the next lower rank and in
succeeding lower ranks, if necessary, on
the same roster will be assigned.
Except as otherwise provided in this
Agreement, in the absence of qualified
applicants from the seniority roster of
the position in question, the senior
qualified applicant from other seniority
rosters in the same sub-department will
be assigned.
While Carrier has stated that Roster 1 has no ranks as
specified by Rule 22(A), this Board sees no reason why
Roster 2 should not be considered as the next lower rank
when filling Roster 1 positions. This record reveals that
Carrier's application of Rule 22(A) in regard to filling
Group 1 and Group 2 vacancies is appropriate. Rule 22(A)
does not address the specifics of the Machine Operator
roster. Absent clear language on the subject, a reasonable
application of the rule is acceptable. The practice has
been to award jobs in Group 1, as Carrier did in this case.
Petitioner has not persuaded this Board that a legitimate
practice in this area did not exist.
AWARD
The Claim is denied.
R.E. Dennis, Neutral Member
Br ce~ over, Employe Member
&'Vev
A"
NN
Date f -Kpproval
Maxine Timberman, Carrier Member