(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks, ( Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employees PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (The Western Pacific Railroad Company

1. The Carrier violated the rules of the Agreement extant between the parties when it improperly removed Clerk R. G. Williams from his Position No. 666, Car and Train Desk Clerk, midnight to 8:00 AM, at Oakland, California.

 2, R. G. Williams be restored to his Position No. 666, Car and Train Desk Clerk, and compensated for all lost wages.

 OPINION OF BOARD: Pursuant to Clerks' Circular No. 147-71, the Claimant was
 assigned to position #666, Car and Train Desk Clerk, on
 July 16, 1971; thereafter, he worked such position until November 24, 1971, at
 which time he was relieved of the duties of the position by the following let
 ter of the Terminal Agent:



The Employees' position is that: (1) Claimant was entitled to a hearing under Rule 45 (discipline) and (2) the Claimant, after working the position for four and one merely stated an opinion that Claimant was not qualified without giving any detailed reasons. Carrie not be disqualified under Rule 30, which relates to failure to qualify within thirty (30) days, because he had been on the position more than thirty (30) days when his removal occurred. While this argument seems to have been abandoned in the Submissions to this Board, we note that this Board's prior Award 5051 has ruled adversely to the Employees on this facet of Rule 30.)


With respect to the Petitioner's contention in 1 above, we note the Carrier's statement that, while Claimant could have requested a hearing under Rule 46 (Unjust Treatment), the instant facts did not require a disciplinary hearing under Rul that prior rulings clearly differentiate facts such as those herein from facts constituting discipline. Award Nos. 5105, 11975 and 14596. Consequently we must reject the Emp
The Employees' second contention, that Carrier was arbitrary, challenges the Agents' letter of N for Carrier's action. However, Carrier did not rely only on the November 24 letter, so we need not pass on the adequacy of this letter standing alone. The record contains a December 8, 1971 letter from the Agent which gives Carrier's specific reasons letter states:

        "I have written two letters, July 26th and July 30, 1971, plus three notes, and have talked with Ray on several occasions bringing to his attention the discrepancies occurring on his job while he was on duty.


        Mr. Williams has been on this job five and one half months and Iff

        in my judgment the work should be routine particularly in the

        areas where he makes errors and oversights.

        Mr. Williams has found it very difficult to write up outbound

        train lists, even after repeated warnings and letters as men

        tioned above. Along with this, Ray has failed to match movement

        waybills with cars moving out of Oakland instead making a card

        bill, when all the time in the box in front of him the waybills

        were available.

        On November 23, 1971, Mr. Williama listed out of Oakland on

        GGM-23 five (5) RM's as empties to MP 92 - Agent. The boxes in

        front of him, mentioned above, held the revenue movement way

        bills for these cars of frozen pineapple worth well over

        $82,000.00. Fortunately a wire proceeded the movement and

        Stockton was watching for them. I shudder when I think what

        could have happened."


The two letters and the three notes referred to in the foregoing December 8 letter are consistent with the contention that work errors had been brought to Claimant's attention.
                  Award Number 20045 Page 3

                  Docket Number CL-20159


The December 8 letter by Carrier's Agent, and the facts therein referred to concerning Claimant's performance of the duties of position #666, provided a statement which, taken at face value, showed a reasonable basis for Carrier's decision to disqualify Claimant from position #666. However, the Employees in their Rebuttal Brief merely suggest that the December 8 letter shows that duties of the position. The Employees offered no evidence to show that Claimant did not commit the r excusable, or that any exonerating or mitigating facts existed. Thus, in the record before us, the Employees have offered argument - but no evidence - to refute Carrier's evidence of justifiable reasons for the disqualification. Carrier's evidence, in consequence, must be taken as establishing a reasonable basis for Claimant's disqualification and we shall accordingly 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 the Agreement was not violated.


                      A W A R D


        Claim denied.


                          NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                          By Order of Third Division


ATTEST
 xecutive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 30th day of November 1973.