DISPUTI7.=`Claim of J. O. Gray for time lost on August 17th and 24th, 1032, because of not being called to fill vacancies ill caller-clerk's position at Yardley, occasioned by the regular incumbent laying off."
FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record amt all the evidence, finds that
The carrier and the employees involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employees within the meaning of tile Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 1934.
This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over tile dispute involved herein.
The parties to said dispute were given due notice of hearing thereon.This dispute being deadlocked, Paul Samuell was called in as Referee to sit with the Division.
The parties have jointly certified the following facts, and tile Third Division so finds:
"Caller-clerk pitcher laid off on August 11th and 24th, 1932. Mr. Gray at that time was out of service account reduction in force. Mr. Henenlotter, junior in service to Mr. Gray, who was also out of service ml account of force reduction, was called oil August 11th and 24th to work iii Mr. pitcher's place.
"It has been the practice at Spokane (Yardley is in the Spokane terminals) for employees who are suspended because of force reduction, and who desire to be called for temporary or emergency service in tile Spokane terminals, to give their names and addresses to the General Yardmaster and to the Agent who have used such men for such service in the order of seniority when they have been available and are qualified to handle the work."
The first controverted question in this case is the seniority rule, which is identical with the question raised in CL-110, Award No. 10u, and were this the only issue the claim of J. O. Gray would be allowed. However, an additional question has been raised in this case, t. e., did claimant Gray have sufficient fitness :]oil ability? The issue is quite sharp. Claimant unfortuiiately suffers a physical disability-the loss of all arm. It appears from the nocord that the position in question required work much bezn ier than Mr. Gray had previously performed and that such employee was obliged to dinib over and between moving cars. The carrier in this instance had the responsibility of selecting an employee with sufficient fitness and ability. We stated in a plevtous case, "this Division is reluctant to interfere with tile decision so made by the carrier so long as it acts in good faith, is without bias uT Inejudicc, and indicates no disposition to purposely or carelessly evade ,,r disrespect the rules as well a9 the spirit and intention thereof." In tl c instant case tile carrier's superintenck·nt advised the Acting Division Ckatrmnu of the Brotherhood to the effect that it was carrier's judgment that Mr. Grny's dtsabtlity was a serious handicap for the position.
This Division is reluctant to interfere with that decision considering tho cin·un~st,inces tend the °esponsddlily placed upon the carrier to appoint eluployees with sufficient ability and fitness.