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

(a) Carrier violated the agreement at Atlanta, Georgia, when it refused to assign Mr. J. E. Moore the senior bidder to the position of Chief Clerk in the office of Regional Materials Manager.

 (b) Carrier shall be required to compensate Mr. J. E. Moore in the amount of $2.19 per day five days per week beginning March 12, 1973, at six percent interest, and continuing until he is assigned to the position of Chief Clerk as advertised in Bulletin No. 37, dated March 5, 1973.

 OPINION OF BOARD: It is important to note at the outset that the Organiza
 tion and Carrier herein substantially revised and re
 numbered the "old" provisions of the controlling Agreement, effective
 March 1, 1972. Part of that renegotiation involved Rules at issue herein
 to wit: a) Rule 1 (Scope) was revised but the parties left inter alia the
 exceptions section" in negotiations. Thus, under principles of Railway
 Labor law, status quo prevailed in the form of the "old" exceptions.
 b) "Old" Rule 15 (ion, Vacancies or New Positions Not Filled by
 Seniority) was revised and renumbered as Rule 14 . c) "Old" Rule 16 (Fill
 ing Vacancies Under Seniority Rules) was retained and renumbered as Rule 15.
 d) "New" Rule 16 (Grievances) was established in the Agreement.

 Thus, at the time the instant claim arose the applicable sections of the Agreement read as follows:







"Exceptions:

 It is understood that this agreement does not apply
 to the following enumerated employees and positions:
 t a w

 (c) (Effective September 1, 1926) While positions of Chief Transportation Timekeeper, Chief Clerk to Terminal Superintendent and Chief Clerk to Division Storekeeper are not excepted positions, it is understood that in filling vacancies in these position the principles of Rule 15 shall govern.

Promotions, vacancies or new positions which are not filled by seniority shall be filled as follows:

 Qualifications, merit and capacity being relatively equal, preference shall be given employees in the service, who have made application, in order of their service age.

RULE 15 - Filling Vacancies Under Seniority Rules

 Except as otherwise provided in this agreement,
 Rules 7, 8, 9, 1,3, 14, 15 and 17 in particular,
 vacancies covered by this agreement will be filled
 in accordance with principles defined in Rule 15
 (exclusive of the notes) in the following manner,
 except that merit, capacity and qualifications
 being sufficient, seniority shall govern:
 r

 RULE 16 - Grievances

 An Employee who considers himself unjustly treated, otherwise than covered by these rules, shall have the same right of investigation, hearing, appeal and representation as provided in Rule 40 if written request which sets forth the employee's complaint i made to his immediate superior officer and/or the desi~ated officer with whom claims are filed, within -
 Award number 21055
 Docket Number CL-20869

 Page 3

 "NOTE: This rule should be used particularly in instances
 where an employee is adiudaed not to have relatively
 equal or sufficient qualifications i merit and ca
 pacity for a position on which he has submitted an
 application or bid and a Junior employee has been
 assigned or awarded the position. The employee
 must then present evidence at the hearing that he
 did have relative equal or sufficient qualifi
 cations, merit and capacity and the burden of proof
 rests with such employee. In the event the employee
 had previously filled the position for thirty (30)
 or more work days during a vacancy or during a va
 cation period and had not previously been disqualified
 therefrom, the burden of proof would then shift to
 the carrier to prove such employee did not have
 relatively equal or sufficient qualifications, merit
 and capacity.

 This rule is not limited solely to cases of the type cited above, but may be used in am case where an employee feels he has been unjustly treated in some manner not covered by any specific rules) of this agreement." (Emphasis added)

 On March 5, 19'/3 the position of Chief Clerk in the office of Regional Materials Manager was advertised for bids. During the bid period tyro applications were received; one from Mr. J. E. Moore, Claimant herein and the other from Mr. W. M. bade. By Bulletin dated March 12, 1973 Mr. Gude was assigned the job. In this claim under Rule 16 the Organization on behalf of Mr. Moore, argues that Carrier violated the controlling Agreement cited supra when it awarded the position to dude and not to Moore.

 The position in dispute, Chief Clerk to the Regional Materials Manager, formerly was titled Chief Clerk to Division Storekeeper. Thus, there is no question that said position is subject to "old" exception (c) to Rule 1 quoted supra, i.e. it is understood that in filling such vacancies the principles of Rule bold" Rule 15) relative to Promotions, Vacancies or New Positions Not Filled by Seniority shall govern. Thus, the dispute before us involves the interpretation and application of Rules 14 and 16 quoted supra.
We think it bears pointing out that Rule 14 does not obviate entirely the consideration of seniority in filling vacancies thereunder nor does the Rule give Carrier the unqualified right to fill. the Chief Clerk position "without regard to seniority" as Carrier seems to contend. Rather, as we read that Rule seniority or "service age" does come into play under Rule 14 and that Rule requires preference be given a senior employe if qualifications, merit and capacity are relatively ecaal between a junior


and senior employs. (Emphasis added). Thus, that Rule may be violated where Carrier fails or refuses to give preference to a senior employe whose qualifications, merit and capacity are relatively equal with those of junior bidders. Rule 16 (Grievances) and especially the Note thereto are important in considering allegations of such violations. The clear and express language of that Rule shows tha have the burden of proving that his qualifications are relatively equal to those of Mr. Oude who got the job. Absent such a factual showing no determination of a Rule 14 violation is possible on this particular record. This is so because, contrary to assertions of the Organization, we find not one scintilla of evidence of bias, prejudice or discrimination against Claimant nor any shoving of scienter in Carrier's selection of Dude. That leaves the sole question raining whether Claimant has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that relatively equal to those of the junior employe at the time the appointment was made. In our considered judgment he has not carried this burden of proof.

 The uncontroverted record shows that Claimant Moore was working for a little less than a year as Chief Stock Clerk in the Regional Materials Manager's office and Gude had worked in that office as Invoice Clerk for over two years. Claimant was possessed of a high school education; while Gude held a Bachelors degree in Business Administration and a technical certificate in data processi relief of the Chief Clerk in the office of the Diesel Shop Manager; whereas Gude held a regular relief position one day a week as Chief Clerk at TnmAn Yard. Relative to merit and capacity every managerial supervisor who testified rated Gude superior t that he could do the work if given a chance and contentions that his work performance had always been satisfactory. We do not contradict these assertions nor denigrate Claimant when we hold that such are not relevant or probative evidence on the only salient point before us, i.e. were his qualifications relative equal and accordingly we have no alternative but to deny the claim.

 FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Hoard, after giving the
 parties to this dispute due notice of bearing thereon, and upon
 the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:

 That the Carrier and the Employes involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and Employee within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934;

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



                  A W A R D


        Claim denied.


                          NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJVSTM" HOARD

                          By Order of Third Division


ATTEST:~wI/ . p dmz!~e

        Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 29th day of April 1976.