PUBLIC LAW BOARD NO. 7566
BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE ) OF WAY EMPLOYES DIVISION )
IBT RAIL CONFERENCE )
)
and )
)
WISCONSIN CEN1RAL LTD. )
)
CaseNo.44 AwardNo.44
Claimant: 0. Luther
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:
The Carrier's decision, by letter dated October 4, 2012, to disqualify employe G.Luther from his position asa mobile work equipment mechanic was arbitrary, improper, unwarranted and a violation of the Agreement (Carrier's File WC-BMWED-2012-00028 WCR).
As a consequence of the Carrier's violation referred to in Part 1 above, Claimant G. Luther shall be afforded the full remedy prescribed in Rule 31 of the Agreement."
Fiudinu:
The carrier or carriers and the employee or employees involved in this dispute are respectively carrier or employee within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 1934.
Public Law Board 7566 has jurisdiction over the parties and the dispute involved herein.
Parties to said dispute were given due notice of hearing thereon.
Claimant's position was abolished and he displaced to a mobile equipment mechanic position on September 6, 2012. He was disqualified from the position on October 4, 2012 and advised that it was due to his failure to perform duties in a satisfactory manner.
The Organization argues that Claimant was improperly disqualified for a deficiency after he had displaced pursuant to Rule 11. The Organization continues that there was no training for the position, therefore the Carrier cannot cite Claimant for a lack of training. Further, the Carrier never specified the deficiencies that disqualified claimant and thereby denied himthe opportunity
PLB No. 7566
Case No.44 Award No.44
to correct. The Carrier only mentioned some nonspecific deficiencies late in the claim process. Moreover, the Carrier cites Rule 6(c) for the disqualification. However, the rule only applies to bid positions and does not apply to this situation in which Claimant displaced to the Mechanic position. The Organization continues that Claimant's inability to findsome locations was due to him being assigned to the wrong territory. Had Cliamant been assigned to the correct territory, then there would have been no issue with the locations of assignments.The Carrier responds that the Claimant was disqualified because he lacked the ability to troubleshoot and repair equipment and could not find some of the locations. It also alleged Claimant presented a safety risk because he could not properly repair and troubleshoot despite mentoring and training. Further, the Carrier contends thatthe Claim for the pay differential between the assignment hehadand the assignment he would have had is inappropriate.
* * *
C. Positions will be awarded to the senior applicant who possesses the general qualifications, subject to the limitations in Paragraphs E and F below. Individuals who are awarded positions for which they do not have the specific qualifications will be given a minimum often (10) and a maximum of forty (40) working days to fully qualify for the position. Employees failing to qualify for positions will, within 7 days, return to their former positions unless they have been abolished or filled by senior employees, in which event they may exercise seniority.
* * *
A. Employees whose p sitions are·abolished or who are displacecfwilfhave the iighf todisplace any employee junior to them, provided they possess the specific qualifications of the job and that such displacement rights are exercised by physical displacement within seven (7) days from the date released from the employee's prior position. Vacation time taken will extend the employees displacement time by the extent of time taken.
The burden is on the Organization to establish a violation of the Agreement. Here, the Organization must show that the disqualification was done arbitrarily or unreasonably. In the instant matter, the disqualification letter stated that Claimant was disqualified, in pertinent part:
PLB No. 7566
Case No.44 Award No.44
"You displaced to the Work Equipment Mechanic position on September 6, 2012. A Work Equipment Mechanic is required to troubleshoot and repair railroad equipment. Since the displacement you have failed to perform your job duties in a satisfactory manner."
This Board has reviewed the record. The Carrier can determine job requirements and qualifications. The Claimant displaced to the position and worked in that position for 28 days. The Carrier's disqualification notice to Claimant simply stated that he was unable to perform the job satisfactorily. The Organization asserts that Claimant met the minimum qualifications because he was allowed to displace to the position. The Organization also maintains that the Claimant was not assigned to the proper territory and therefore his failure to find locations cannot beconsidered against him. During the handling of the claim, the Carrier initially asserted that Cllamant was unable to perform his job later asserted that Claimant was a safety risk. However, there isnothing in the record inthis matter tosupport the Carrier's position and refute or rebut the Organization'sclaims.
A review ofthe record shows no support forthe Carrier's blanket assertion in the October
4, 2012 disqualification letter. Claim sustained.
Brian Clauss, Chairman
Signedon lJl_.·. ·_··_C.L...n...\.W...t... ..._··_3··_.._..}.....
tionMember
20 1 6
1