(International Association of Machinists and Aerospace ( Workers Parties to Dispute: (Denver and Rio Grande Western Railroad Company

 Dispute: Claim of Employes:

 1. That the Carrier violated Rules 15, 23, 27, 45 and Supplement "L" of the Agreement effective July 31, 1980, when it refused to permit Machinist D. G. Shoemate (hereinafter referred to as Claimant) to exercise his seniority on February 12, 1982, and displace junior employe.

 2. That, accordingly, Carrier be ordered to compensate Claimant an amount equal to all overtime earned by the junior employe he was not permitted to displace.

 3. That the Carrier violated the time limit provisions of Rule 31 of the current Agreement.

 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 employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 1934.

 This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.

The dispute herein arose because the Claimant, upon abolishment of his machinist position in the Carrier's facility at Denver, Colorado, was not permitted to displace a junior employe occupying position of Roadway/Machine and Equipment Repairman, the Carrier taking the position that Claimant did not meet Carrier's qualification for the position of Roadway/Machine and Equipment Repairman. The record shows that the Roadway/Machine Equipment Repairman position was bulletined on January 21, 1982 (Bulletin No. 35) as follows:
 Form 1 Award No. 10754
 Page 2 Docket No. 10554
 2-D&RGW-MA-86
 "There is a vacancy for one Machinist to workr~i
 as Work Equipment Road Machinist, 7:30 A.M. to
 4:00 P.M., and to work in Work Equipment Shop,
 7:00 A.M. to 3:30 P.M. when not on road work.
 Successful bidders must possess a valid
 Colorado Driver's license, six (6)
 months experience in work equipment or
 equivalent outside experience. REST DAYS -
 Saturday and Sunday.
 Bids will be received in the office of the
 Master Mechanic until noon, Tuesday, January
 26, 1982."

On January 28, 1982, the position was awarded to Machinist R. R. McDaniel, whom the Carrier considered the senior qualified applicant.

 In the handling of the dispute on the property, time limit issues also developed and are present in the dispute before the Board. The Board must initially dispose of the time limit contentions. The Organization contends that Carrier's Chief Mechanical Officers, one of the Appeals Officers on the property, did not decline the Claim within sixty days from date of appeal as required by the time limit rule of the applicable Agreement. The Carrier contends that the denial of the Chief Mechanical Officer was not rejected within sixty days, nor was appeal to the next highest officer perfected within sixty days; that the Claim was not properly handled on the property; is not properly before the Board and must be dismissed. The Carrier also contends that the designation of "General Chairmen" by the Organization was not proper.

 A review of the record shows that the Claim was appealed to the Chief Mechanical Officer by the General Chairman in letter dated September 27, 1982. The Chief Mechanical Officer denied the Claim in letter dated December 7, 1982, which was beyond the sixty-days time limitation. The Chief Mechanical Officer, being an Appeals Officer, knew or should have known, the requirements of the Time Limit Rule. By his failure to comply with the sixty day time limit requirement, the Claim became allowable under the Time Limit Rule.

 By Memorandum of Agreement dated May 31, 1963, the Carriers and the Organizations representing certain employes subject to the jurisdiction of the Third Division, created what was described as the National Disputes Committee to decide, among other disputes, those arising under the Time Limit Rule of August 21, 1954, which contained provisions similar to, if not identical with, Section 1 through 5 of Rule 31 of the Agreement involved herein. On March 17, 1965, the National Disputes Committee issued unanimous Decision No. 15 wherein it was held:

within which the Superintendent was required ...
 to render his decision on appeal, and finds
 that such decision was not rendered within the
 applicable time limit.
 Form 1 Award No. 10754
 Page 3 Docket No. 10554
 2-D&RGW-MA-86
 "In this connection the National Disputes
 Committee points out that where either party
 has clearly failed to comply with the
 requirements of Article V the claim should be
 disposed of under Article V at the stage of
 handling in which such failure becomes
 apparent. If the Carrier has defaulted, the
 claim should be allowed at that level as
 presented; and if the employee representatives
 have defaulted, the claim should be
 withdrawn."

 Considering the above quoted portion of National Disputes Committee Decision No. 15, we do not agree with the contentions of the Carrier concerning the Organization's rejection of the Chief Mechanical Officer's late denial or appeal to the next higher Officer.

 The question then arises as to the remedy for Carrier's violation of the sixty-day provision of the Time Limit Rule. Here again we refer to decisions of the National Disputes Committee. On March 17, 1965, that Committee issued unanimous Decision No. 16, involving the same Carrier as involved herein:



See also Second Division Awards Nos. 4853, 6370 and Interpretation No. 1 to Award No. 6326.

 In Third Division Award No. 24298, with this referee participating, it was held.
Form 1 Award No. 10754
 Page 4 Docket No. 10554
 2-D&RGW-MA-86
 Disputes Committee, and awards following the
 issuance of that decision, have generally held
 that a late denial is effective to toll
 Carrier's liability for the procedural
 violation as of that date. From the date of
 late denial, disputes are considered on their
 merits if the merits are properly before the
 Board."

We find that the proper measure of damages for Carrier's violation of the sixty-day time limit of Rule 31 is to allow Claimant the difference in earnings that he may have had if permitted to exercise his seniority as requested effective February 17, 1982, and what he did earn from February 17, 1982, to and through December 7, 1982. Allowance of this portion of the Claim on the time limit issue has no effect on the merits of the dispute.

 As to the merits of the dispute, we do not find a violation of the Agreement. Supplement L of the Agreement effective September 1, 1940, under which the Shop Crafts Agreement of the Mechanical Department would apply to Roadway Machine and Equipment Repairmen and helpers, contained the following:

In the handling of the dispute on the property the Chief Mechanical Officer described the work:

and went on the state:
Form 1 Award No. 10754
 Page 5 Docket No. 10554
 2-D&RGW-MA-86

 The Organization contends that in denying the Claimant the right to displace the junior employe on the Roadway Machine and Equipment Repairman position because he did not possess the necessary qualifications, the Carrier denied him the right to a fair trial on the position in accordance with Rule 15 of the Agreement.

 The Board agrees that the Carrier has the right to set qualifications and to determine the job content of positions. See Award No. 6760. The record shows that it has been the practice on the property to list qualifications for positions in bulletins, especially for Roadway Machine and Equipment Repairman positions. Also, Rule 15(d) of the Agreement recognizes that qualifications must be sufficient for the filling of a position. We consider the following from Award No. 9414 to be applicable in the present dispute:



Our recent Award No. 10431 considered a dispute quite similar to the one involved here, but between other parties, where Mechanical Department Machinists were denied the right to exercise their seniority and displace a junior machinist (Roadway Equipment Machinist). In that Award the Board held:
Form 1 Award No. 10754
 Page 6 Docket No. 10554
 2-D&RGW-MA-86
 refusal to accommodate the Claimants' bumps to
 have been capricious or arbitrary. The burden _,fir
 of proof requires the Organization and
 Claimants to present pertinent information
 dealing with the qualifications of those
 involved at the time of displacement. In the
 face of the language of Rule 22(g), simply
 asserting one is a journeyman machinist fails
 to persuade this Board that the claim is
 mertiorious."

We will sustain the Claim only to the extent previously set forth as the proper measure of damages for carrier's violation of the sixty-day Time Limit Rule.

 We do not consider the contention of the Carrier regarding representatives designated by the Organization to be a matter addressing itself to this Board.

        Claim sustained in accordance with the Findings.


                            NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                            By Order of Second Division


Attest-4 . ~4
 Nancy J. eyoOF - Executive Secretary

 Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 26th day of February 1986.