( Station Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood

1. Carrier violated Rules 4, 7 and related rules of the Clerks' Agreement when it arbitrarily and capriciously refused to assign Mrs. Myrtle L. Baker to the position of Junior Bill Clerk No. 323 in lieu of a junior employe in the office of Manager Disbursements Accounting, St. Louis, Missouri (Carrier's File 205-4738)

 2. Carrier shall now be required to compensate Mrs. Myrtle L. Baker for the difference in rate of pay, $1.08 per day, plus any general wage increases, beginning Monday, November 20, 1972, and continuing for each subsequent work violation is corrected by assigning Mrs. Baker to the position of Junior Bill Clerk Job No. 323. '

 OPINION OF BOARD: When Carrier advertised the position of Junior Bill
 Clerk, Claimant,(t Statistical Clerk), made application, but it was assigned to another employee senior to the successful applicant. Claimant requested specific and precise reasons for Carrier's denial of the promotion.

 Carrier asserts that Claimant was "...not qualified to satisfactorily perform the duties of that reference to the fact that Claimant only scored 38h (pasaim;g grade 68) on a test given to her to determine her knowledge of the work in question. The record, as developed on the property, fails to disclose the specific contents of the test, nor does the record indicate that the successful applicant took a similar test.

 We do not dispute Carrier's contention that tests may properly be used to determine qualification of applicants. But, as we study the Awards cited by Carrier in this regard, we conclude that the tests in question must be considered in light of all facts of record, and the Board must assure that the contents of the test are reasonably related to the question of qualification under review. See, for example, Award 15002:






Moreover, we concur with the Awards cited by Carrier which hold that when a Carrier makes a determination that an employee is not qualified, the burden shifts to th Accordingly, a close scrutiny of the record, as handled on the property, is appropriate to determine if Claimant has satisfied the above stated burden.





In addition to listing the duties of the position, the advertising bulletin stated:



In response to Claimant's request for "...specific and precise reason for being denied the position...", Carrier cited the "QUALIFICATIONS" (noted above) and advised that " ..you did not have the training and experience specified on the job test score was 38k.


Carrier's response prompted the instant claim; which asserted that the job of Junior Bill Clerk is, essentially, a training job to aid in qualifying employees for the jobs of Senior Bill Clerks. Moreover, the claim asserted that Cl familiar with ICC Uniform System of Accounts. Carrier continued to assert that Claimant did not possess sufficient fitness and ability to perform the duties.

 The Organization continued, on the property, to assert that Claimant should have been promoted, and on November 16, 1973 stated to Carrier;

On November 27, 1973, Carrier replied to the November 16, 1973 letter, and failed to dispute the above-cited recitation. On December 11, 1973, Carrier again corresponded with the General Chairman, but no comment was made concerning the cited recitation, although Carrier did refer to the test results.

 It is difficult, indeed, to assess an individual's qualifications when one is confined to a review of a cold record; limited to only those matters considered on the property. We note that Rule 4(a) and its NOTE I do not suggest that Claimant and the successful bidder are to be "compared" concerning fitness and ability. Rather, if the senior applicant has "sufficient" fitness and ability degree of capability demonstrated by a junior employee.

 As we review Carrier's contention (as raised on the property) it is conclusionary in nature. Although Carrier asserted that Claimant did not possess sufficient fitness and ability, it did not specify the basis for its conclusion, other than repeated references to the test score. Moreover, we feel that the ref Although there is some limited suggestion that the test was related to job content, we do not have before us sufficient information upon which we can intelligently evaluate the pertinence of the test. In short, we are aware that Carrier concluded that Claimant was not qualified, but we are not aware of the factual basis for that conclusion, nor do we have adequate information to fully evaluate Carrier's conclusion.


While conclusions of lack of fitness and ability may be sufficient to rest the burden upon Claim position, cited above. The assertion contained in the November 16, 1973 letter (also cited above) suggests to us that Claimant met those limited qualifications. Carrier failed to deny the assertion although it had opportunity to do so. Accordingly, we conclude that Claimant has demonstrated sufficient fitness and ability, and that Rule 4 was violated.



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



Claim (1) sustained to the extent of a finding of a violation of Rule 4.


                        By Order of Third Division


        ATTEST: Executive Secretary


        Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 21st day of March 1975.


..Pt~A