In regard to the Claimant being on the list of employees qualified to work in the Air Brake Room, the Carrier argues that the said list was prepared for another purpose and that it erroneously shows the Claimant as qualified to build and tear down valves. It says the Claimant had previously been disqualified from building all but "W" valves and that while he worked for a time tearing down valves, he left the Air Brake Room in 1990.

The Organization requested that this Carrier argument be stricken from the record in accordance with recognized Board procedures because said argument was not made during the handling of the instant claim on the property.

The record before us does not show that this Carrier argument was made prior to the claim being docketed for presentation to the Board. For this reason, we have disregarded it in reaching our decision.

The Organization also directs attention to a meeting held on October 21, 1992 between the Local Chairman and the General Foreman, a Foreman and a Labor Relations Officer. It submits, as supported by correspondence of record, that at this conference it was agreed that the Claimant would be permitted to go to the Air Brake Shop on his own time to refamiliarize himself with the work and to learn any new procedures that the Carrier may have instituted since he last worked in the Shop. Further, it was understood that at such time as the Claimant was secure in the belief that he could perform such work, that he would so inform the Carrier and that the latter would assign an individual to observe the Claimant for a day. Then, if it was determined that the work being performed was of a proper quality, the Claimant would be permitted to work in the Air Brake Shop.

The Local Chairman said he agreed with the arrangement with the concurrence of the Claimant and because like arrangements had worked in the past when there was a dispute over the qualifications of an employee.

The Claimant had a physical examination on October 23 and thereafter reported at 7:00 A.M. on October 26, 1992 to start his refamiliarization in the Air Brake Shop. At this time, he was confronted by a Supervisor, who, with the concurrence of the General Foreman, refused to allow the Claimant to start his refamiliarization program until such time as the Chief medical officer passed upon the results of the physical examination.

On November 13, 1992, after having been informed that he had now been physically cleared to work, the Claimant reported to the Shop. For reasons not set forth in the record, the Supervisor is said to have refused to let the Claimant go to work and did not do so until ordered by the General Foreman. Thereafter, the Supervisor reportedly refused to test valves worked on by the Claimant and told the Claimant that he could not work in the Shop. The Claimant reportedly took his protest about such treatment by the Supervisor to the General Foreman who, in turn, is alleged to have confirmed what the Supervisor told the Claimant, telling the Claimant that he could not work in the Shop since he had not been "quality tested" and had not worked during the "shop certification process."

There is no question, as the Carrier argues, that numerous decisions of this Board have held that it is a Carrier's right, except as otherwise relinquished by Agreement, to determine an employee's fitness and qualifications, and that employees do not have a demand right to a position on the basis of seniority. At the same time, it is recognized that numerous past Awards have likewise held that a Carrier's decision is not final and conclusive relative to such matters where it is evident that the Carrier actions are totally unreasonable.

In the instant dispute, the Carrier's actions in holding the Claimant not to be qualified do not seem to the Board to have been reached in concert with the spirit of the understanding made in joint conference that the Claimant be given the opportunity to demonstrate that he was qualified. Rather, it appears from the record that the Claimant's immediate supervisory officials were insensitive to the resolution of such issue in the manner determined at the said conference, and arbitrarily denied the Claimant the opportunity to refamiliarize himself with the valve work and to show that he could perform the work required of the positions in the valve Room.

The Board will therefore direct that the claim be remanded to the property for such disposition as may be realized in keeping with the understanding which the parties had entered into in joint conference on October 21, 1992. In this respect, the Board will hold that the Carrier is obliged to ensure that its supervisory officials in the Raceland Car Shop afford the Claimant a fair opportunity to show whether he has the requisite qualifications to work in the Valve Room.

AWARD