In this case, Mr. L. B. Hamilton (Claimant) grieved an alleged violation of his seniority rights under Rules 1, 2 and 10, when Carrier passed him over in favor of a junior bidder for the vacant position of Bridge Tender on the Morley Bridge on the New Orleans "A" seniority district. It is not disputed that Claimant entered service of Carrier July 12, 1960, that during twenty one years of service he had an "unblemished" employment record and that he established seniority in the New Orleans "A" seniority district, where he worked as a Track Foreman at the time the bid was posted and filled in June 1989.
Claimant was the senior in length of service of the three (3) bidders for the Morley Bridge Tender vacancy, but Carrier selected Mr. C. L. Woodward, a B&B Mechanic who was junior to Mr. Hamilton in length of service.
By letter of July 20, 1989, the BMWE General Chairman filed this claim on behalf of Mr. Hamilton, pointing out that Carrier had awarded the bid to the junior employe who "held no New Orleans "A"rights." In denying the claim on July 28, 1989, the Superintendent did not dispute the relative seniority of the applicants, but did dispute the relative ability, as follows:
Careful examination of the undisputed facts, the plain language of the Rules and authoritative precedent all lead this Board to sustain the claim. Rule 1 (a) defines seniority as length of service with Carrier. Carrier erred additionally in selecting Mr. Woodward because he allegedly was "more qualified" than Claimant. Rule 10 is not a "relative ability" hybrid seniority provision but rather a "sufficient ability" provision. It is well settled under NRAB precedent that the senior bidder under such language need not show greater or even equivalent ability to the junior applicant. Rather, seniority must govern provided only that the senior bidder possesses "sufficient" or "adequate" ability and merit. See Awards 3-2638: 3-5852; 3-8181: 3-11279 and 3-14762.
Nothing in this record suggests that the position of Bridge Tender requires any special qualifications, training, experience, ability or merit beyond that which Claimant possessed as a Track Foreman with an unblemished twenty one-year work record with this Carrier. The fact that no specific training, experience, expertise, ability or merit is required to perform Bridge Tender duty is reinforced by the language of Rule 1(e) of the Agreement between the Parties, Based upon all of the foregoing, therefore, this claim must be sustained.