The Carrier has, in its correspondence with the Brotherhood, set forth in detail its position in this case and nothing has been submitted by the employes to disprove or refute the statements of the Carrier. This Board has so frequently and consistently held it is the prerogative of management to determine fitness and ability, that it is not a matter that can be questioned now. Awards 96, 396, 1147, 1588, 2031 and 2142. In this case the Carrier based its determination on a thorough study and investigation of Mrs. Peterson's background of education, training and experience, together with her employment and service record with this and other comanies, and her attitude as evidenced by her attendance and failure to avail herself of the opportunity to educate herself sufficiently for clerical positions. The decision that the claimant was not fit and able to handle the position was a result of a full and mature consideration of the claimant's fitness and ability by her supervisors. The employes do not say Mrs. Peterson had the requisite fitness and ability to handle the position, they merely assert that because she was senior to the incumbent she should have been permitted to displace on the position and they belatedly asserted for her many attributes of which the Carrier had no previous knowledgethat the Carrier recognizes the displacement rights of employes is evidenced by the fact that Miss Dorothy Nelson, senior to both Mrs. Peterson and the incumbent, was permitted to displace on the position on November 30, 1944. Even thought Mrs. Peterson had been allowed to displace on the disputed position she would only have occupied it from October 2 to November 30, 1944.

With regard to the literal claim of the employes that the Carrier" refused to consider application of Maxine Peterson . . " as covered in Section 1 of their statement of claim, it is the position of the Carrier that the only finding the Board may make on this question is on the basis of the facts of record which are conclusive in showing that Carrier did fully consider the application of Mrs. Peterson and its decision was made accordingly. The fact is the Brotherhood is protesting the decision, not the lack of consideration, by the Carrier. With regard to Section 2 of the employes' claim, the Carrier maintains that the employes have made no showing that the claimant had the necessary fitness and ability, in accord with the rule, to discharge the duties and functions thereof and it is their responsibility to do so. See Third Division Awards Nos. 2099, 2865 and Second Division Awards Nos. 17 and 18.

The Carrier maintains it has shown through its presentation of facts of record and discussion that the employes' claim is without merit for the following reasons:

1. Mrs. Peterson, the claimant, was considered for the disputed position-this is admitted by the employes in the Joint Statement of Facts. Inasmuch as the employes claim, (1), is that "The Carrier violated the agreement when it refused to consider the application of Maxine Peterson . " the Division is confined to this question in deciding the employes' claim. The employes admit that consideration was given, therefore, the claim must be denied. Claim (2) must also be denied, since it is based on Claim (1);

2. Rule 6, has been applied through the years from its inception in a manner consistent with the Carrier's explication thereof as is evidenced by tabulation of positions bulletined and awarded both junior and senior applicants and the employes' concurrence therein is established thereby;

3. The claimant did not have the requisite fitness and ability to fulfill the functions of the disputed position and the employes do not contend that this is the case.

OPINION OF BOARD: Based upon all the facts and circumstances of this particular case, the Board is not disposed to disturb the action of the carrier.

That the Board is not disposed to disturb the action of the carrier.

AWARD