Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award. No. 7376
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 7296
 2-SPr-CM-' 77



Parties to Dispute: ( (Carmen)


Dispute: Claim of Employes:




Findings:
The Second Division 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.

Claimants F. Sava and J. Laguna, both employees with about 32 years service, were on furlough status from the Carrier's Sacramento heavy car maintenance plant, where both held seniority as carmen.

 In mid-October 1975, furloughed carmen from Sacramento were called to fill vacancies at Roseville, California, about 15 miles from Sacramento. At Roseville, Carrier maintains a yard and repair tracks with facilities for inspection and repair of freight cars, as well as a train yard for inspection of cars and air testing before trains depart.
 Form 1 Award No. 7376
 Page 2 Docket No. 7296
 2-SPT-CM-' 77

 The basis of the claim before us is that both claimants were not offered employment at Roseville, whereas other furloughed carmen at Sacramento, with less seniority, were allowed to work at Roseville.

 The grounds advanced by Carrier for not transferring claimants was that they do not read or write English -- a prerequisite for the work at Roseville.

 In support of the claim, Petitioner cites Rules 23 and 19(e), quoted below:







The Organization argues that claimants' 32 years of service demonstrates their competence; that claimants' service as carmen for 7 and 10 years, respectively, proves their qualifications which entitles them to transfer rights based on Rule 23; that both claimants had previously worked at Roseville and that Sava had been assigned by bulletin dated September 23, 1969 at Roseville as Relief Car Inspector; and that at Sacramento, instructions and orders, verbal and written, are in English. Accordingly, the Organization concludes, claimants should have been afforded opportunity to demonstrate their ability to perform the work at Roseville.

 Carrier asserts that the claimants were not qualified to perform the work required at Roseville, because neither claimant could read or write English, a knowledge of which is essential to performing train yard carmen duties. These duties require the preparation of reports, reading instructions and information shown on cars being inspected, and understanding of U. S.
 Form l Award No. 7376
 Page 3 Docket No. 7296
 2-SFT-CM-'77

 Department of Transportation regulations dealing with safety appliance standards and power brake requirements. Since the claimants were not qualified, no violation of the Agreement was incurred by employing junior furloughed carmen at Roseville.

 Carrier states that Rule 23, relied on by Petitioner, provides for the temporary transfer of employees laid off provided they are qualified to do the work at other points where they hold no seniority. Rule 23 is a specific rule, which under well recognized principles enunciated by this Board, prevails over general rules.

 Rule 19(e), also cited by Petitioners,is inapplicable to claimants, Carrier maintains, since they do not hold seniority at Roseville. Moreover, Rule 19(e) recognizes Carrier's responsibility to give "efficient service;" hence, Carrier reserves the right to determine an employee's fitness and ability for the requirements of a job, unless its decision is arbitrary or capricious--an action not proved by Petitioner.

 Carrier adds that current carmen duties at Roseville have changed since claimants last held assignments at that location, involving preparation of reports and reading instructions and information which claimants previously were not required to do because of their inability to read or write and to receive or pass on verbal instructions in the English language. Carrier's repeated assertions that claimants were unable to demonstrate an ability to read or write English have not been denied or refuted, nor has Petitioner furnished proof of such ability.

 A careful review of the record leads to the conclusion that there was no violation of the Agreement in this case.

 Under Rule 19(e), the filling of vacancies is subject to management's responsibility for providing "efficient service." Absent any restrictive language in the Agreement, management retains the right to determire what a job should consist of and, therefore, the desired qualifications fox that job.

 Determination of an employee's qualifications relates to a candidate's, present qualifications at the dine a vacancy exists and applicants bid or are entitled to consideration for such vacancy. "Qualified" as used in Rule 23 does not mean ability to qualify after further learning or experience on the job or after a trial period; it means possessing the required knowledge, ability, skill, or experience at the time an applicant bids for the job or is entitled to be considered for it. A trial period is not to enable a senior employee to become qualified, or at least to prove his contention that he is qualified -- unless the Agreement specifically so provides.
 Form 1 Page 4

 Award No. 7376
 Docket No. 7296
 2-SPT-CM-'77

 Only after management has made its decision, subject to any agreement restrictions or limitations upon its authority, that an employee fits the job; that is, he is qualified, a trial period tests whether such employee is fulfilling the job's requirements satisfactorily. In essence, management determination of qualification constitutes a condition precedent for a subsequent trial period, unless otherwise provided by agreement rules and provisions.

 Carrier's right to set qualification standards is not restricted by the Agreement between the parties.

 Rule 23 provides that laid off qualified employees, in line of seniority, will "be permitted" to work at their craft or class at points where vacancies exist. We find no automatic entitlement to such vacancies, irrespective of qualifications. Lacking evidence of arbitrary, capricious, or discriminatory action, we must conclude that Carrier exercised reasonable and honest judgment concerning the requirements of the job and claimants' qualifications for the particular job.

 This Board frequently has denied claims of senior employees filed under language similar to that of Rule 23 herein, who were denied, transfers, promotions, or other job assignments because they lacked the necessary qualifications. Award 6760 (Second Division) and awards cited therein.

 Under the circumstances at hand, the claim is without merit and must b e denied.

 Claim of employees denied.

 Attest: Executive Secretary
 National Railroad Adjustment Board

 A W A R D

NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

By Order of Second Division


By ~ (/
 marie Brasch - Administrative Assistant

 Dated t Chicago, Illinois, this 14th day of October, 1977.