r

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT NO. 1016

AWARD NO. 50

Case No. 50

Referee Fred Blackwell























FRED BLACKWELL Claim Denied.
 ATTORNEY AT LAW
 P.O. BOX
 WESTCCLUM6095

(103)791-8086


          This case arises from a claim filed on April 11, 1987 by the Claimant, Mr. Gary E. Duke, who alleges that the Carrier violated the Agreement by its action of assigning Allegheny "A" Division Seniority District Employee L. L. Clear, a Machine Operator, instead of Allegheny "B" Division Seniority District Employee, Claimant Duke, to string line curves on various on the Allegheny "B" Division Seniority District. Alleging that the seniority rights of Machine Operator Claar are restricted to the Allegheny "A" Division Seniority District, the Organization requests that the Carrier be required to compensate Claimant Duke for all hours worked by Mr. Claar string lining curves on the Allegheny "B" Division Seniority District.


                                  I. FACTS

          The submission of the Organization sets out several arguments in support of the claim. However, the record shows that the parties agreed, on May 18, 1988, that the outcome of the claim would depend on a test of the qualifications of Claimant Duke to string line curves. Consequently, the Board deems all arguments in the case abandoned excepting the parties' arguments concerning the said test.'

          In regard to the subject of the agreed to test of the Claimant, the Carrier submits in an August 15, 1988 letter by the Senior Director-Labor Relations, Mr. G. F. Bent, that


FRED BLACKWELL 1 This finding covers and treats as abandoned the Organization contention that the
 ATTORNEY AT LAW Claimant possessed sufficient qualifications to string line curves.
 P.O. BOX 6095 2
 WESTCOLUMBIA. -
 SC.29171
 (803)791-8096
                        SBA No. 1016 / Award No. 50 - Case No. 50


          the Claimant failed to pass the test for the following reasons (Carrier Exhibit A):


                "1. Failure to denote length of spiral in, and length of spiral out


                  2. Failure to denote maximum elevation per MW. 4 for train operation over each portion of compound curve.


                  3. Did not designate elevation run-off (rate of change at uniform rate) as required for each spiral.


                4. Failure to denote Timetable speed for track data taken on."

          The letter also states that copies of the stringlining notes taken by both Claimant Duke and Mr. Clear are attached to the letter.

          The Organization submits that the Carrier failed to show that the Claimant did not successfully pass the June 1, 1988 test of his qualifications to string line curves.

          Specifically, the Organization asserts that the information omitted from the Claimant's answer sheet, which the Carrier cited as the reasons why the Claimant failed the test, was not shown by Carrier evidence to have been requested or required of Claimant Duke. The Organization also asserts that what is required of an Employee performing the work of stringlining curves, on a daily basis, is far less than that shown on the Claimant's test sheet.


                            11. FINDINGS AND DISC6SSION

After due assessment and study of the foregoing and of the whole record, the Board finds that the Carrier's determination that Claimant Duke failed the agreed to test, is supported by substantial evidence of record and is not rebutted by any evidence or FRED BLACKWELL argument offered by the Organization.


ATTORNEY AT LAW

 Ro.6ox 6095 3 _
 WESTCOWMSIA, _
 S.C.29171
 (81791-8096
              SBA No. 1016 / Award No. 50 - Case No. 50


The Carrier's determination was based on a June 1, 1988 opportunity for Claimant Duke to demonstrate his qualifications to string line curves. The demonstration/test was conducted in the presence of Carrier and BMWE Officials. The evaluation of the test results by two (2) Carrier Officials was that Claimant Duke failed the test due to his omission of four (4) categories of pertinent information.

The Organization contention that the Carrier did not present evidence showing that the Carrier requested or required the Claimant to provided the omitted information, has no tendency to weaken or rebut the Carrier's findings that Claimant Duke failed the test of his qualifications to string line curves. The Carrier's determination regarding the Claimant's non-qualifications for the duty of stringlining curves is supported by adequate evidence of record and therefore, the claim will be denied.

In view of the foregoing and based on the whole record, the Board finds that the claim is not shown by the record to be meritorious and the claim will therefore be denied.


AWARD:

      The claim is not shown to be valid by the record as a whole.


      Accordingly, the claim is hereby denied.


      BY ORDER OF SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT NO. 1016


FRED BLACKWELL ATTORNEY AT LAW

 P.O. Box 6096 4
 WESTCOLUMBIA
 S.C.29171 -
 (893)791-8086
 SBA No. 1016 / Award No. 50 - Case No. 50

                            i

7100*,

      ~ I Fred Blackwell, Neutral Member


S. V. Powers, Labor Member

 H. Burton, Carrier Member

 Executed on /~.5~ . 19;

 IConrail\1016\50-50.N16

FRED BLACKWELL

AT70RNEY AT LAW


P.O. BOX 6095

WESTCOLUMBIA,

S.C.79171

1803)791-6006