OPINION OF BOARD: Miss Bernice Langenohl, Claimant, held seniority in Carrier's General Accounting Office in St. Louis, Missouri, with a seniority date of May 24, 1928.

On January 11, 1966, Carrier's Controller's Office issued bulletin number DA-8 advertising a vacancy on Position No. 012, Personal Clerk, in the disbursements section of the General Accounting Office in St. Louis. The duties of this position were described in the bulletin as follows:

"To assist in closing inventories as required. Assist in development of annual report data. Maintain current record of payments made by Agents, etc. for use in annual preparation of forms 1099. To do special and general work as assigned.

Develop special data for outside offices, etc., as required. Handle outside record room duties and secure information from within and

outside of the office as may be necessary. To have ability to originate and handle correspondence as necessary. Perform such other similar or lower rated duties as may be assigned."

Claimant placed a bid for the position.

"Reference is made to your letter of January 20, 1966, requesting specific and precise reasons as to why you were denied assignment to Personal Clerk Job No. 012 advertised by Bulletin DA-8, dated January 11, 1966, which was assigned to Joe T'. Haney, a junior employe.

In a meeting in Mr. Stallings' office on January 17, 1966, in connection with your bid on this position, your attention was directed to the duties of 'handle outside record room duties and secure information from within and outside of the office as may be necessary.' You were then advised that these duties are unsuited for assignment to women and that your assignment to this position would severely limit the Company in its operations.

Rule 32 (a) provides that the working conditions for women employes must be healthful and fitted to their needs. Obviously, the conditions of the basement Record area do not adequately fit the needs of women employes. Records in this Record Room are stored up to 20 feet high, which, of course, requires use of ladders to gain access to them. They are stored in boxes weighing as much as 35 pounds, and since the incumbent of position No. 012 will be required to search the records, we find that it would be very undesirable to assign women to this position. Moreover, the aforesaid duty contemplates that the incumbent of this position will be required to do some out of town traveling. (Emphasis ours.)

In view of the foregoing, your bid on position No. 012 was denied."

"Employer covered by these rules shall be in line for promotion. Promotion, assignments and displacements under these rules shall be based on seniority, fitness and ability; fitness and ability being sufficient, seniority shall prevail.

NOTE 1: The word 'Sufficient' is intended to more clearly establish tt.d prior rights of the senior of two or more

employes of the same seniority district having adequate fitness and ability for the position or vacancy sought in the exercise of seniority."

"You have been previously advised by Mr. G. K. Weigel, Vice President-Controller and Mr. E. R. Lauman, Senior Assistant Controller that claimant was denied this position because it carried certain duties that would not be suitable for women to perform. Various files and records in connection with this position are kept in boxes and when filled to capacity, weigh 35 pounds or more and are stored up to a height of 20 feet in the basement record room. The work of handling 35 pound boxes of records, climbing 20 ft. ladders, etc., is not adapted to female service, nor is the duty of traveling to other cities or points on the railroad to secure information as may be necessary in the performance of the duties assigned to this position. (Emphasis ours.)

The refusal of the Carrier to assign claimant to the position in question is based entirely upon the nature of the work involved in the performance of the duties thereon. A part of the duties are in locations where women have not been employed because they will by their sex be unsuited to perform all of the duties assigned to the position.

It is the Carrier's position that claimant was not qualified to properly perform all the duties attached to the position of personal clerk. The vacancy was filled pursuant to the provisions of Rules 4 and 32 of the Clerks' Agreement.

In view of the foregoing claim is without merit or rule support and is respectfully declined."

"Claimant, a female, was employed as a laborer. She sought, unsuccessfully, to displace a male laborer whose seniority was junior to hers. Petitioners avers: (1) Claimant had a contractual right to displace the junior employe; and, (2) she was denied exercise of the right because of Carrier's intent to rid itself of female laborers.

Carrier says it did not permit Claimant to effect the displacement because she lacked sufficient fitness and ability to perform the tasks of the position. It states that in making the determination, Claimant's age, sex, and physical condition, along with the nature of the work, were among the factors considered. To this Petitioner responds that Claimant had been employed as a laborer for a number of years; ergo, she had the fitness and ability to perform the work of any laborer position.

The issue, as framed on the property, is whether Claimant possessed the fitness and ability to perform the work of the position on which she attempted to displace the incumbent.

In Award No. 12994 we held:

`Whether an employe possesses sufficient fitness and ability for a position within the meaning of rules is a matter exclusively for the Carrier to determine and such a determination once made will be sustained unless it appears that the action was capricious or arbitrary. See Award 3273-Carter; Award 10000-Webster; Award 10689-Mitchell; Award 11572-Hall; Award 12433-Seff.

We cannot substitute our judgment for that of Carrier's. Our function is limited to a review of the Carrier's decision to ascertain whether it was made in good faith upon sufficient supporting evidence. Here the Carrier determined the Claimant lacked the qualifications to satisfactorily perform the work involved. Petitioner has not proven that Claimant possessed the necessary knowledge and qualifications as to permit seniority to prevail nor has Petitioner established that the action of the Carrier was arbitrary, capricious or designed to circumvent the Agreement.'

In the instant case Petitioner has not proven that the action of Carrier was arbitrary or capricious or designed to circumvent the Agreement. We will deny the Claim."

Also in point are the Board's Opinions in Award Nos. 9190, 12338, 15164.

We find that Carrier's complained of action was not arbitrary or capricious or designed to circumvent the Agreement. We, therefore, for reasons stated in our Awards, cited supra, which are applicable to the instant case, will deny the Claim.

FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:

That the parties waived oral hearing;

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 this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and

That Carrier did not violate the Agreement.

AWARD Claim denied.

NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD By Order of THIRD DIVISION

ATTEST: S. H. Schulty

Executive Secretary