if the railroads are to be operated with efficiency and safety, this decision must be made by the management.

(Exhibits not reproduced.)

OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant, Peter Caulfield, with seniority date of September 15, 1923 was employed as an Elevator Operator at the La Salle Street Station in Chicago at rate of $233.32 per month. Under date of April 24, 1948 Carrier issued Bulletin No. 28 advertising vacancies for, 1. Elevator Starter $255.81 per month, 2. Assistant Elevator Starter $238.32. Claimant bid on Job No. 2 but was not assigned, the assignment being given to a junior employe, one Domenick Rinaldi, seniority date September 30, 1929. The effective date of the assignment was April 30, 1948. Claim is made by the Employes for Carrier's refusal to assign Mr. Caulfield to the position and for the difference in pay between the Assistant Starter's position and the Elevator Operator's position on the ground that the seniority rule and promotion rule cited in the Position of Employes were violated.

In letter dated May 3, 1948 to Claimant explaining the reason for his not having been assigned to the position, the Building Superintendent advised Mr, Caulfield as follows:

"Wish to state that according to your past record and repeated tardiness and failure to report for work with this record, it does not indicate your ability to handle the job of overseer operator nor the people using these elevators. This is based upon records of both past and present performance."

The principles guiding this Board in the determination of claims such as this have been stated in various ways in many Awards of this Board. Generally speaking, the rule that has been uniformly applied, even though stated differently in the numerous awards on this question, is that the Carrier has the right to determine in the first instance the fitness and ability of applicants for promotion and when there is evidence, which if believed, is sufficient to sustain the Carrier's judgment that the senior employe lacks sufficient fitness and ability for the position sought, the judgment of the Carrier will not be disturbed.

In this instance, it is shown that the Claimant in 1943 was tried on a Rule "G" violation, found guilty and reinstated about a month after the occurrence, and Carrier indicates that Claimant's record is replete with instances of tardiness, failure to report for work, and failure to report reasons for absences and failure to notify the proper supervisory officer of the Carrier in advance that he would be obliged to be absent. Now, we don't believe that the Rule "G" violation standing alone should be considered sufficient to bar this employe from advancement for if it could that would result in the assessment of further discipline for a dereliction which the employe had already expiated. Here, however, there is evidence of other conduct (not effectively refuted by Employes) which formed the basis of the Carrier's judgment. While we recognize that the position of Assistant Starter of Elevators does not call for a great deal of supervision, at the same time it does require a standard of reliability and punctuality, plus a certain amount of intelligence, tact and affability not necessarily required of an operator. From the record it seems clear that Carrier assessed the Claimant on his record and found him wanting in those qualities. We cannot say that its judgment in that respect was unreasonable. Nor, do we find evidence of partiality or bias. Accordingly, we hold that a denial award is required.

FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, after giving the parties to this dispute due notice of hearing thereon, and upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds;

That the Carrier and the Employes involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934;

That Carrier did not violate the Agreement.

AWARD

Claim denied.

NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

By Order of Third Division