PUBLIC LAW BOARD NO. 6564
BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYEES
And
CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC.
Case No. 14
Statement of Claim: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:
1. The Agreement was violated when CSXT disqualified employee
M.C. Orr from a Midwest North Service Lane Work Territory
Bridge Team 6PP# Bridge & Facilities Mechanic position on
October 15, 2002.
2. As a consequence of the above-stated violation, the Organization
requests that Mr. Orr be reinstated with his B&B seniority and
be made whole for all lost wages and benefits, plus be permitted
to displace a junior employee working on the Midwest Region
B&B department.
Statement of Facts:
Claimant M. C. Orr was hired by CSXT on May 23, 2002 as a basic trackman. On
September 17, 2002, he voluntarily bid and was awarded Position 6PP#-074 Bridge and
Facilities Mechanic position on a Midwest North Service Lane Work Territory Bridge
Team. He was afforded almost thirty days in the position to qualify under the provisions
of Rule 3.
By letter dated October 15, 2002, Claimant was given notice that he had failed to
qualify as a bridge mechanic because of concerns about his safety when he was working
at excessive heights on bridges with power-operated tools. Thereafter, Claimant
requested an unjust treatment hearing, as set forth in Side Letter No. 32, dated March 27,
2002.
?La(a5c~
At the hearing, which was held on November 1, 2002, Bridge Supervisor Jim
Stephens testified that Claimant did not work safely or efficiently while on the bridges.
The Carrier determined that no evidence was presented to find that Claimant's
disqualification was arbitrary or unreasonable.
By letter dated November 26, 2002, the Organization appealed the Carrier's decision.
The Organization contended that Regional Engineer Structures H. L. Davidson had not
rendered a decision and that there was insufficient evidence to find that Claimant was not
working safely. The claim was discussed in conference on January 14, 2003, and the
Carrier confirmed its earlier decision. In a rebuttal letter dated March 3, 2003, the
Organization reiterated its position and also asserted that Claimant's disqualification was
due to a lack of proper training by management.
Findines:
Claimant was afforded a fair hearing during which he had full opportunity to present
evidence in support of his claim that he was treated unjustly. Based upon a careful
review of the Record, however, this Board is compelled to conclude that Claimant's
disqualification was neither arbitrary nor unreasonable.
Supervisor Stephens testified credibly about the safety issues associated with
Claimant's performance. He said that Claimant moved tentatively, was hesitant to walk
on the bridge, and was reluctant to use power tools at excessive heights. While the
Organization argued that Claimant had not received sufficient training on his position in
order to qualify, Claimant conceded during his testimony that he had been trained on the
Pl.8 (05(04
3
~A
W
d
use of fall protection. It is also clear in the Record that Supervisor Stephens had worked
with Claimant on a daily basis to provide the proper guidance and instruction. Claimant
was given enough time to qualify, but his performance did not meet the Carrier's
standards in regard to safety and efficiency. Therefore, the Carrier was within its rights
in disqualifying him.
Numerous arbitration awards have recognized that a carrier has the discretion to
determine an employee's fitness and ability for a position. As was held in Third Division
Award No. 35808 (Bern):
Qualification, fitness and ability to perform a job are determinations
to be made by the Carrier, subject only to limited review by the
Board as to whether the Carrier was arbitrary in its determination.
In the instant case, the Organization did not rebut with sufficient evidence the
testimony that Claimant lacked the aptitude and skills to perform safely the tasks required
of his position. Undisputedly, following Claimant's disqualification, he was permitted to
exercise his seniority for other positions under the terns of the labor Agreement. The
Board also notes that if and when Claimant attains greater experience and confidence, he
may try again to qualify for a Bridge and Facilities Mechanic position.
Award
The claim is denied.
an Parker, Neutral Member
arrier Mem *gau tion Member
d1 0
Dated: o Dated:
~ - I
~-O~