_ Award No. 15





BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY P14PLOYES

and

UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD C014PABY


STATEMENT OF CIAIM :









FINDINGS :

Special Board of Adjustment No. 313, after giving the parties to this dispute due notice of hearing thereon and upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:

The carrier and employes involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employes within the meaning of the Railway labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934.



Claimant Valliere in this case has held temporary assignments as PainterForeman, but he holds no seniority as a painter foreman or as painter or in the painter group, which in the instant contract is numbered Group 7, under the Bridge and Building sub-department. All of his seniority was in Group 6.

Jardine, who received the promotion to Painter-Foreman, held seniority in the painter group, Group 7, but not in the geographical district in which the vacancy existed.


r

















other provisions cited by the organization have no bearing on the issues before us.

The organization points out that seniority does not operate system-wide and insists that the procedure set forth in Rule 34(b) should have been exhausted within the Los Angeles to Salt lake district before going out of this geographical district for assignment.

There is some dispute about the latter part of the above statement, but Rule 33 seems to substantiate this position.

The carrier, though, makes an issue of the qualifications of the claimant, Valliere, and states that the division officers responsible for the accomplishment of work objectives and selection of personnel did not consider the claimant qualified to fill the position and were therefore free to look elsewhere.

Our attention is directed to the last portion of Rule 34(b) which applies to positions of foremen and supervisors and which reads:


    " .where ability and qualifications are sufficient, seniority

    shall prevail, the management to be the judge with respect to

    positions covered by this section."


The promotion provisions of Rule 34(b) are not the standard type of promotion rules. Rule 34(b) is a specific rule designed to cover foremen and supervisors. It specifically reserves to management an even greater measure of discretion than is accorded to management in passing upon the qualifications and ability of ordinary employees for promotion. The use of the language "management to be the judge" indicates an intention on the part of the parties that management's decision in regard to qualifications and ability must be given very great weight; otherwise the "management to be the judge" clause would be mere surplusage. Even though a mere unsupported conclusion by management (which is not the case here) that one employe has greater ability than another may not always suffice, in the light of the provision of this contract we must give very great weight to the bona fide judgment of the division officers in this case that the claimant was not considered qualified to fill the position.

    The claim should be denied.


AWARD :

    The claim is denied.


                            SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTI ''NT N0. 313


                              (s) Marion Beatty

                            Marion Beatty, Chairman


                              (s) A. J. Cunningham

                            A. J. Cuiuiingham, Organization Member


                              (s) A. D. Hanson

                            A, D. Hanson, Carrier Member


Omaha, Nebraska November 21, 1960