NATIONAL RAILROAD ADji;STMEINT BOARD
 Award Number 20243
 rHlP-D DI·~IS=0N rocket 1'umber SG-19879

 Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen
 PARTIES TO DISPUTE: C
 (George P. Baker, Richard C. Bond, Jervis Langdon,
 ( Jr., and Willard Wirtz, Trustees o° the Prop
 ( _rt·~ of ?era Central _=ansportation Company,
 ( Debtor

 STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood
 of Railroad Signal men on the former Pennsylvania
 Railroad Compaq -that:
0(D), on November ip, 1967, c.hen it removed D. A. Madden, Suction Maintainer, Zoo Section, tour Saturday and Sunday, and assigned him to Position 2388, 2nd trick Section Maintainer, Broad and Zoo, rest days Saturday and Sunday. At the time of this move, there were two Junior Mechanics--one, R. :I. Haney, was reduced from the class due to a bump and should have been brought up from the Assistant Signal:.an's class to fill this job was working in the Gtrclematic Gang at North Philadelphia and at the present date is still working in this gang.

 (b) Claim is made for each eight (8) hours that D. A. `ladder
 was forced to work illegally at Broad Tower Section on the second trick
 from 3:00 P.M. until 11:00 P.M. instead of the first trick at Zoo Sec
 tion from 8:00 A.:1. until 4:30 P.M., plus all overtime made by M. G. Hud
 son, who was-awarded Maddens job on an advertisement. _
 System Docket No. 658 - Philadelphia Division Case No. 138/

 OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant had a seniority date of May 3, 1967 as a
 Maintainer, C. & S. on Carrier's Philadelphia Division. On August 16, 1967 he was assigned t C. § S., Broad and Zoo Section, Philadelphia with a second trick tour of duty with hours of 3:00 P.M. to 11:00 P.M, at a rate of $3.394 per hour. Based on his bid and subsecuent award, Claimant was assigned effective November 1, 1967 to the trick with hours of 8:00 A.M. to 4:30 P.M. His former second trick position was advertised and no bids were received. On November 15, 1967 Claimant was removed from his first trick position and reassigned to the second trick job. R. :I. Haney, an Assistant Signalman, had a seniority date of October 30, 1967 as a Maintainer, C. & S.. He had been displaced from the Maintainer's Class on November 10, 1967 and had been working as an Assistant Signalman. A. T. Eliasen, Maintainer C, Fs S, had a seniority date of October 30, 1967 as a Maintainer and

;snm apam ear suoTqonpaa aoaoi uaqm ssslo ui paonpaa afoldma uv



. PUP, uoialsod aye 3daoOE

oz paalnbaa aq lleqs OTuauvam ss daTZOTUas 2ssal

aqa qaTN. aOTAaas aATJOe UT ~Tuaqoam paizTI2nb aye

'uemTausTS lusaslssy up lions 74ITM paTITI aq 30UUVO

uoilTsod aqa 3T °BuiuTSaa so asanoo seed ano; sty

pajaldmoo ssq oqn uemlauBTs auaasissy us ~q palITy

aq Ileus uo~pTsod aq: `0T PUP 6 suoillas '+, alOT;ay

yqTM e7Uep2OJOV UT SsBTO aqa Wag paqSnoling ao paonpaa

a.&oTdma UP Bu-illaoaz Kq paITTi aq aouus-o zT pus ssalO

OTUV409M aqo ul luawaSTZZanpa aapun ST uoTITSOd s 3;






          SNOIIISOd 07, .II\3M`JISSV QR'Y UI'90IN3S-7 =071TTe_


    :sapTAoad (p)OZ uo'-702S Aj ado==at 'suosaaa UOT]EO

    -~TI2nu U~L~ a2',...'Ea :.~TanTU?F a'v_ P?OETCSTP U22^. D-'_·; ;',3E 7aU:c:JU?L",.

    Tsusis O; uoT2omcad aol paT;TTsnb PEI, aq aOUTS uo-clsoc aye acl palz

    -Tlsnb se:~ t;auE~; aauz papua~uoo aaq:jans sT ;I 'Juamaaaay auq 3o (p)

    OZ U0T:jOaS ~1i ajnT:~ay 70 suoTSlncac aqa aapun ;Uaaa°7sse YOTaa puooas

    aun TTT7 on dr, iu°noaq uaaq aAEU PTnous `auamaosldsTC Zq paonnaa uaaq peu oyn 'Aauejj uscIEU2TS OuvaSTssy aPq3 sannav aeUOT~T~ac


                                          sTydlapat Tu,Z

    qaao;~ 3s Zuni T,o-~:c;O_~ an; Ul 's _ ';; a '=;:._r~:.TS~, s~ Pa_<;ssr ss:.


      6L86?-OS aaamnf~ ~ay,OOO

      Z a2ea £'7ZOZ aaqmn~l paEMv

                  Award Number 20243 Page 3

                  Docket ;.'umber SG-19979


        " have been received from qualified employes for such position or vacancy. Refusal to accept such return to _=rvi__ shall constitute forf=it·sre h·· the ~^mlove of is seniority rights in a1i classes above that of helper,"


          Section 10 (a)


        An emplove laid off in force reduction, including one who has elected to accept furlough under the provisions of Section 3 (c) of this Article, must keep the a notice by registered U.S. Mail is mailed to his last recorded address, directing him to report for advertised permanent position or vacancy for which no bids have been received from aualified employes. ?f there are conditions which prevent him from returning to duty within this cen day period, he must, within the ten day period, report by telephone or otherwise to the officer notifying him, giving his reasons for being unable to return to duty, and must request permission to be absent. When an employe secures permission to be absent this will extend the ten day period by the length of the period he is granted permission to be absent. An employe failing to duty within ten days from the date such notification is sent to his last recorded address, who has not reported and secured permission to be absent, shall forfeit all seniority and shall cease to be an employe of the Company."


Carrier takes the position that neither Haney nor Eliasen were qualified to fill the position of Maintainer C. & S. at Zoo Interloczing and that it had se with least seniority in the class in accordance with Section 20 (d) above. During the handling on the property Carrier's C. & S. Supervisor in a letter dated Jan
        "The men you mention in this claim, A. T. Eliasen and Rufus Haney, had previously been examined in the presence of Mr. J. L. Nack, B. R. S. Local Chairman and had not displayed sufficient ability to qualify as Maintainers, C. & S. at Zoo Interlocking."


The Organization cites Award 20107, involving a closely related issue, in support of its position. We note, however, that in the cited case Carrier provided no evidence whatever, or even explanation, to support its conclusion sufficiently qualified; that factual situation is clearly distinguishable in the instant dispute, as noted above. Furthermore we do not agree with the conclusion reached in Award 20107 that the fact
                  Award :lumber 20243 Page 4

                  Docket :;umber SG-19879


of the dispute involving a senior employee being assigned to a position rather than a junior emp the application of the principle of determination of qualification by the Carrier as enunciated in prior decisions. It is our conclusion that the responsibility of the the public and its property is sufficient rationale to justify Carrier's prerogatives inthis area; f historic position of the Board recognizing the right of management to determine the fitness and ability of an employee for a particular position. This right may be set by convincing probative evidence that Carrier acted arbitrarily and capriciously. See Awards 17177, 15494, 12994 and many others.

 In the dispute before us the Agreement makes a distinction between classification and position (Article Iz7). It is apparent that not all employes in a classification are qualified :or every position. The Organization at no time took exception to the statement by the Supervisor C. & S. quoted above and presented no evidence concerning the qualifications o nothing in the record indicating that Carrier's actions were arbitrary or capricious. We conclude th assigned Claimant to the second trick position in conformity with Article IV Section 20 (d).

        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 the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934;

 That this Divison 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 ADJUST:SENT BOARD

                      By Order of Third Division


        ATTEST: executive Secretary


        Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 17th day of may 1974.