BEFORE PUBLIC LAW BOARD NO. 5027
Case
No. 2
BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYEES
and
UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY (FORMER MISSOURI-KANSAS
TEXAS RAILROAD)
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:C1aimoftheSystem Committee of the
Brotherhood that:
1. Claim in behalf of Trackman T. D. Williams for
the establishment of a seniority date of 2/27/89 in
the Foreman's classification on the Consolidated
System Roster No. 8900.
FINDINGS:
This claim involves the dispute between the organization, on
the Claimant's behalf, and the Carrier as to Claimant T. D.
Williams' seniority date as it appears on the carrier's seniority
roster, specifically system Seniority Roster 8900. The
Organization contends that a February 27, 1989, gang foreman
seniority date should be added to the claimant's records on
System Seniority Roster 8900.
This claim arose in February 1989 after the Claimant was
bypassed on promotion to a gang foreman position on Gang 8970, a
system track surfacing gang. The Claimant discovered that solely
because the Carrier's seniority roster reflected erroneous
seniority and service dates, he did not receive the gang foreman
position. The Organization contends that the Claimant was the
senior applicant for said position, but the Carrier assigned
junior employee D. L. Scott, Jr. to the foreman's position on
Gang 8970 effective February
27,
1989.The Organization now
seeks to have the Claimant assigned a gang foreman seniority
date of February 27, 1989, to the Carrier's System Seniority
Roster
8900,
The Carrier takes the position that although some errors
occurred as to the posting of the Claimant's previous service and
seniority dates on its roster, the fact remains that the Claimant
failed to protest those errors during the period the seniority
rosters were open for correction during 1989 shortly after the
Carrier acquired the former Missouri-Kansas-Texas (MKT) Railroad.
The Claimant had established seniority on the MKT, and the
Carrier began incorporating MKT's records into its new
administrative system. The carrier maintains that based on the
seniority roster subsequent to the protest period, the senior
employee was assigned to the position of gang foreman. The
Carrier acknowledged and corrected some errors, but refused to
add the February 27, 19&9, gang foreman seniority date to the
claimant's records an its System Seniority Roster 8900 because
the Claimant was not promoted to the gang foreman position. The
Carrier maintains that promotions are made on ability and merit
and then on seniority, and the Claimant did not possess the
required qualifications to assume the supervisory duties involved
in directing the operation of a surfacing gang. The carrier
contends that it cannot grant the seniority requested by the
Claimant based on his date of service alone.
The parties being unable to resolve the issues, this matter
came before this Board.
This Board has reviewed the record in this case and we find
y
2
that the Carrier violated the agreement when it failed to assign
the Claimant to fill the position of foreman on Gang 8970. There
is no dispute that the Claimant was the senior employee who
submitted an application for the position of track foreman on
Gang 8970. It was the Carrier's error that failed to show the
Claimant's proper seniority date as track foreman on the System
Seniority Roster that precluded his being awarded the position.
Rule 1 specifically states that promotions should be based
on ability and seniority; ability being sufficient, seniority
shall govern. The Claimant was the senior applicant and the
carrier assigned a junior employee to fill the position. There
is no question that the Claimant had the ability to perform the
job. The Carrier admits that the wrong seniority date for the
Claimant was in the computer.
The record also reveals that the Claimant protested the
seniority roster in a timely fashion.
The record reveals that but for the carrier's error in
placing the seniority dates into the computer, the Claimant would
have been awarded the position. The organization has met its
burden of proof in this case and, therefore, the claim must be
sustained.
AWARD
Claim sustained.
PETER R. MEY S
Neutral
Carrier ation Memb
Dated:
3