Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 10999
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 11015
 2-MP-CM-'86
 The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Raymond E. McAlpin when award was rendered.
 (Brotherhood Railway Carmen of the United States
 ( and Canada
 Parties to Dispute:
 (Missouri Pacific Railroad Company

 Dispute: Claim of Employes:

 1. That the Missouri Pacific Railroad Company violated Rules 12 and 31 of the Controlling Agreement when they refused to let Carman N. Ibarra to return to his regular assignment on the day shift at Brownsville, Texas.

 2. That the Missouri Pacific Railroad Company be ordered to compensate Carman N. Ibarra for March 15 and 16, 1984, then beginning March 19, 1984, for five (5) continuous days each week at the time and one-half rate of pay and continuing until the violation is corrected as Carman N. Ibarra was not permitted to return to his regularly assigned job on the day shift at Brownsville, Texas.

 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.

This Claim arises out of the same set of circumstances as disposed of in Second Division Award 10998. In that case the Claimant was seeking mileage and overtime pay due to his having bumped another employee in Harlingen, Texas. In this case the Claimant is protesting the disqualification from his original position in Brownsville, Texas.

 The Organization claims a violation of Rule 12, which reads in pertinent part:
 Form 1 Award No. 10999
 Page 2 Docket No. 11015
 2-MP-CM-'86
 "Rule 12. FILLING NEW POSITIONS OR VACANCIES
 (a) New jobs created and vacancies will be
 bulletined and the oldest employees in the point of
 service shall, if sufficient ability is shown by
 fair trial, be given preference in filling."

 Also, the Organization states that Rule 31 involving discipline was breached
 in that the disqualification is considered a disciplinary action by the
 Organization, and the employee was not given a fair Hearing as required in the
 Rule. The Organization also argues the Claimant is well qualified to perform
 the position of inspecting cars, and just because the Mexican Railroad will
 not allow him on their property is not a sufficient excuse to disqualify the
 Claimant from his position.
 Upon complete review of the evidence, the Board finds this case was
 precipitated not by the Carrier, but by the Mexican Railroad. The practice of
 disqualifying employes without a fair and impartial Hearing, whether insti
 gated by outside forces or not, could be subject to potential abuses. How
 ever, in this case the Carrier did not abuse its discretion. The Carrier
 seems to be perfectly willing to allow the Claimant to continue in his former
 position; however, the Mexican Railroad requested the Claimant not be allowed
 on their property, and the Carrier has no control over this situation. In
 future cases if it appears the Carrier has abused its discretion, perhaps the
 Board will take a different view. In this case the Carrier has not acted
 arbitrarily and capriciously, nor has any specific Rule been proven to have Vow
 been violated. The Carrier has afforded the Claimant all of his seniority
 rights with the exception of bidding on jobs which would require him to be on
 the Mexican Railroad's property, and therefore the Carrier is found to have
 acted reasonably, and the Claim will be denied.
 A W A R D




Attest: <~


Nancy J.,B~ - Executive Secretary

 Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 17th day of September 1986.