a~ Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADj7jSTMENT BOARD Award No. 6700





                      ( Department, A. F. of L. - C. I. 0.

        Parties to Dispute: ( (Carmen)


                      ( Illinois Central Gulf Railroad Company


        Dispute: Claim of E=loyes:


          1. That the current agreement was violated when the Illinois

              Central Gulf Railroad did not award W. H. Sutherland a

              vacancy on the wrecker, but did award it to E. B. Poindexter,

              a junior employe in seniority to MIr. Sutherland.


          2. That accordingly the Illinois Central Gulf Railroad be

              ordered to compensate W. H. Sutherland, for all overtime

              E. B. Poindexter, makes on the Memphis wrecker starting

              November 10, 1971, and continuing until the violation is

              corrected.


' Findings: '
 q The Second Di~-ision of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record
 and all the evidence, finds that:
 The carrier or carriers and the employe or employes involved in
 this dispute are respectively carrier and employe within the meaning
 of the Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 193+.
 This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the
 dispute involved herein.
 Parties to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing
 thereon.
 Claimant herein is employed by Carrier at Memphis, Tennessee in
 the Carmen's classification. The instant grievance arises out of
 Carrier's alleged violation of Rule 19, 127 and 130 when it awarded
 a wrecker assignment to Cayman E. B. Poindexter, a carman junior in
 service to claimant, rather than to claimant. The facts out of which
 the dispute arose are not in contention.
 Cayman R. H. Mixon was assigned to the Johnston wrecking crew,
 as needed, since 1967. In October 1971, Cayman Mixon advised Carrier
 that he no longer wished to work the wrecker assignment. Accordingly,
 on November 1, 1971 Carrier issued Bulletin No. 09 reading as follows;
    ~.!

r f

 Form 1 Award No. 670
 Page 2 Locket TTo. 65 70
 2_TJ-_Cyl_t7L
 "Car-man to work on wrecker when needed and x!13. allso
 work as Derrick Engineer when needed and must have
 a 'fair knowledge of the 250 ton derrick; be able to
 trace trouble arid make temporary repairs to this
 machine in an emergency. vvTnen not engaged in n -wrecking
 service the successful applicant will work regular
 assigned job and all other work coming under the
 scope of the Carmen's Agreement.
 Off days will be the same as on job now held.
 Applicants must work 7:00 A.M. to 3:00 P. M., or
 7:00 A.M. to 3:30 P.M.
 Must maintain a telephone in his residence and keep
 the T~rrecker engineer in_°o?~ed of his whereabouts at
 all times.
 Applicants will be subject to call day or night and
 must be physically able to perform this type of work.
 Rate of pay - x'+.21 per hour."

 Four carmen, including claimant W. H. Sutherland and caiman E. B. Poindexter, filed for the bulletined position. On November 9, 1971, Carrier conducted a test to determine the ability of each of t~e applicants to operate the 250 ton derrick. Claimant proved unable to operate the derrick and 'Poindexter was able to operate the machine fully. There is- no allegation that the test was not administered fairly or that claimant could operate the derrick. On November 10, 1971 the position was awarded to Poindexter.

 On November 14, 1971 the Organization submitted the instant claim on behalf of claimant, for all overtime made by Caiman E. B. Poindexter on the Memphis wrecker from November 10, 1971, as a continuing violation, on the grounds that Claimant improperly was denied the position.

 The Organization relies almost exclusively upon Rule 19 of the Agreement to contend that Claimant as the senior employee should have been given the assignment, notwithstanding his conceded inability to perform the work of derrick engineer on the 250 ton derrick. Under this theory, the Organization insists that seniority alone is the relevant factor in awarding such assignments irrespective of qualifications. Moreover, without waiving that position, the Organization also contends that Carrier was obligated ~znder the
        Form 1 Award No. 0760

        Page 3

                                                Docket No. 5570

                                                2-ICG-CM-' 74


        circumstances herein to train Claimant and give him a reasonable time to qualify on ~he derrick. Additionally, the Organization maintains teat Carrier improperly changed the job qualifications from those originally bulletined in 1967 by adding certain job requirements, including operating ability on the derrick, to the assignment.


Carrier asserts that, under well recognized principles, prior
 v qualification is a condition precedent to entitlement to a position
 under seniority rules. Inasmuch as Claimant admittedly was not
 qualified, his seniority was not alone sufficient to support his claim
 to the job. Also Carrier maintains that it has a right fairly to
 test applicants for a bulletined position, as it did in the instant
 case but has no obligation to tutor the senior bidder. Finally
 Carrier insists that it has the right to assign work in any manner not
 prohibited by the applicable Agreement.
 Careful consideration of all the evidence and circumstances
 herein compels a conclusion that there was no violation of the Agreement
 in this case.
 We frequently have held that Carrier has the right to assign
 ;zork and to determine t.: e job content of positions, :xcept as
 restricted by the express terms of the Agreement. Awards 3454, 6+05,
 123+6, 1390, 13719 et a1 (Third Division). Likewise, we have upheld
 the propriety of Carrier tests to determine qualifications on ability,
 so long as they are fairly and reasonably applied in a nondescriminatory
 manner. Awards 1113, 4214 (Second Division), 12+61, 15002, 15+93
 (Third Division). In the instant case there is no evidence of
 discrimination or of arbitrary, unreasonable or capricious activity
 by Carrier in assessing Claimant's qualifications.
 Finally, the applicable language of Rule 19 requires that senior
 employee be given "preference" but it does not mandate that they be
 awarded a bid-in assignment in every case irrespective of possession
 of the minimal qualifications for the job. This Board frequently has
 denied claims wherein the senior employee was devoid of qualifications
 and was therefore not awarded the assignment under Agreement language
 like that of Rule 19 herein. Awards 11+51 and 1507+ (Third Division).
 In all of the foregoing circumstances, the claim is without merit
 and must be denied.
 A W A R D

            Claim of Employes Denied.


    ~~,

Form 1
 Gage '-E

 fittest: Executive Secretary
 National Railroad Adjustment Board

 Award No. 6700
 Docket No. 6570
 G-1CU-LT4- '74
                1400,


NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUS'Tl`ETIT BOARD

By Order of Second Division


~semarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant

 Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 26th day of September, 197-.