(Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight ( Handlers, Express and Station Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (Western Maryland Railway Company

1. Carrier violated the rules of the agreement when it arbitrarily, unilaterally, disqualifi,: 'I. A. Fouche from the position of Clerk-Tvpist without atfording him an opp,,rtunity to qualify and th
_. Clerk li. :\. -ouche shall now be allowed the difference in the rate of pay betw,,cu the posit: n he presently occupies (Assistant Trace Clerk) and that of Clerk Typist.

Claimant has .> ~eniority date of February 6, 1965. Prior to this dispute he had worked in th three years in the positions of Assistant Trace Clerk and Mail Clerk, Earlier he had worked as Extra Yard Clerk (January 29, 1965) and Relief Clerk (September 29, 1965). One or both of these positions included typing duties.

 On January 15, :971, the claimant's position of Nail Clerk, in the Office of Superintendent of T to displace on three positions: Clerk-Typist, Clerk Stenographer, and Relief Clerk. His displacement notice on the Clerk-Typist position was submitted on January 27, 1971. After a meeting with claimant and two union protective Committeemen on January 28, on January 29 that he was not qualified for the Clerk-Typist position. Claimant then submitted displacement applications on the Clerk Stenographer anal Relief Clerk positions, but was notified he was not considered qualified for these positions either. He then bid for and was awarded the position of Assistant Trace Clerk, Office Superintendent of Transportation.

 The Clerk-Typist position was described as follows in a bulletin dated November 28, 1969:


        "Duties consist of handling all files and maintaining a complete and accurate record of files kept in File Rooms; maintaining file of daily operating reports; typing; assisting with Statistical and other Transporta The duties of this position require a person to be experienced in typing and the use of comptometer.


Petitioner contends that claimant's previous work on positions involving duties similar to the d claimant would have qualified for the Clerk-Typist position had he been given the opportunity to work the position. Carrier's position is that its evaluation of claimant's three Clerk, in the Office of Superintendent of Transportation, afforded a proper and adequate basis for its disqualification decision and, hence, a tria period was not warranted.

 The general criteria which are applicable in this dispute were succinctly stated in Award No. 11 management has the initial responsibility for determining qualifications for particular positions, that management cannot be arbitrary and unreasonable, and that if management decides that the applicant's qualifications are not satisfactory, the employe must show that he is qualified." The employee's showing of qualification need not be established beyond a reasonable doubt, Award No. 10424 (Dolnick). But the showing must be such as "to raise a reasonable probability that h Here, Carrier has exercised its initial responsibility by rendering its judgment that claimant was n record is whether Petitioner's evidence establishes the requisite "reasonable probability".

 The record contains argument and counter-argument on the particulars of Carrier's decision to disqualify claimant. These particulars relate to such matters as claimant's vision condition which requires him to use a magnifying glass in much of Crews' time tickets which involve detailed computations of time, his lack of knowledge of a complex filing system, etc. In the Petitioner's Rebuttal Brief these particulars are discussed and analyzed, in some instances with some effect. In the overall context, however, Petitioner must do more than invalidate some of these particulars by argument; Petitioner must make a showing that claimant possessed qualifications of such a kind and level that Carrier should have given him a trial period on the Clerk-Typist position. Thus, we must examine Petitioner's evidence concern same evidence on which Carrier bases its disqualification decision, for it is only by and from evidence that the requisite reasonable probability can be established.
          Award Number 19762 Page 3

                    Docket Number CL-19732


The significance of claimant's prior work, as put by the Petitioner, is that "... these jobs previously occupied by him on the property raise a reasonable probability that he would be able to perform all the duties of the position within a reasonable time." and, further, that such jobs provide
 ... clear and ample evidence that Claimant has been awarded similar type positions in other departme the Carrier . ." The fact of "similarity" is the touchstone of this argument and, accordingly, we have carefully examined the prior positions with this in mind. However, as reflected by the record, the asserted similarity between the duties of claimant's prior positions and the duties of the Clerk-Typist position is nebulous and so slight as to be virtually meaningless. Certainly there is not such similarity that performance of the prior positions raises a reasonable probability of the abili seems to be the one major duty which claimant had performed with some con=istency throughout his work with Carrier, but, even here, the record clearly suggtits that the Clerk-Typist position calls for a greater typing proficiency than was required by claimant's prior positions. Moreover, although Petitioner asserts that claimant's typing ability was the main reason for his disqualification, the record shows that a number of duties was involved in Carrier's disqualification decision, includ ,n the Clerk-Typist position states that "The duties of the position require a person experienced in ... the use of comptometer," Carrier's Submission stressed the importance of this duty and asserted that it would have to be transferred elsewhere if claimant was placed in the position, Petitioner's answer to this is set forth in its Rebuttal Brief as follows:

        "..o Carrier at no time on the property insisted nn claimant demonstrating his ability to operate a comptometer. The record reveals from the Carrier no attempt to ascertain iris ability in this matter ... the claimant, prior to this employment with this company, worked for the Pangborn Corporation, H operated a comptometer." (Emphasis supplied)


Though the underscored statement is the sole information or evidence offered on claimant's behalf in respect to the comptometer issue, the statement is silent on at least two important facts. The statement says nothing about whether the prior comptometer work was a casual or significant duty of claimant's work during his tenure with Pangborn, nor does it say anything about the proficiency with which he operated a comptometer. Thus, the statement falls short of establishing a reasonable probability that claimant could perform the comptometer part of the Clerk-Typist position within a reasonable time.
                        ltWard i:umher 19762 Page 4

                        Docket Number (:1.-1%732


      finally, it is also significant that claimant's throe most recent ·;cars of work with Carrier was in tl·^ Office of the superintendent of 'transportation _,._ scene office in which the Clerk-Typist p ::;ltlc,,i . siluatcd 'Ibis enaoled t-'. supervisory authority of that office, with its knowledge of the duties Of clai:sLat's prior position ..c^k in relatioiahip to his ability or inability to perform the ditties nt t:h~


      Ci,rk-=-past position. Consequently, we believe. Carrier had before it an ..-tcte,q.uate body of information on which to base a rea::onable jud_cent. And alzhough Petitioner has presented some evidence indicating that claimant Icas carried out a variety of duties in his work on prior positions with C::rrier, the Petitioner's evidence, when viewed in its host favorable light, i., not sufficient to establish the requisite reasonable probability or ro ~!trrar:t a finclin,; that Carrier's action was arhitr;ry or capricious.


            In view of the foregoing we shall dismiss the claim,


            Fl::vI:;CS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole: rocnrd 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 Jtailw.zy Labor Act, as approved .Tune 21, 1934;


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


            The claim is dismissed.


                          A W A R D


            Claim dismissed.


                              NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUST'.LCVT BOARD

                              By Order of Third Division


      ATTEST: 4r, le~ .

      E·:ecut ive'~ccretary


      Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 25th day of play, 1973.


i