Robert J. Ables, Referee


PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes

                (Southern Pacific Transportation Company (Pacific Lines)


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

 (1) The Agreement was violated when the Carrier failed to provide Class 'B1 Carpenter B. E. Guerrero with on-the-job training as a Class 'A' carpenter and when it failed to accord him a fair chance to demonstrate his ability to mee MofW 138-48).

 (2) The Carrier further violated the Agreement when it failed to advise Mr. B. E. Guerrero of its reason or reasons for disqualifying him as a Class 'A' carpenter.

 (3) br. B. E. Guerrero be accorded on-the-job training as a Class 'A' carpenter; he be accorded a fair chance to demonstrate his ability to meet the practical requirements of that class and the disqualification notice dated April 19, 1974 be withdrawn and deleted from his record.

 OPINION OF BOARD: This dispute centers around Claimant's disqualification
 from the position of Class A Carpenter by letter dated
 April 19, 1974 from his supervisor which reads as follows:

                  "Mr. B. E. Guerrero:


                    "You have been accorded an opportunity for qualification under the provisions of Rule 8, Page 9, Class 26 for Class "A" Carpenter on April 19, 1974, and have failed to meet all requirements.


                                    B. J. Pyles B & B Suovr."


There are several rules pertinent to this dispute, with the most pertinent being Rule 3 (Classes), Rule 5 (Seniority), Rule 8 (Qualifications) and Rule 26(f) (Class and Wage Schedule). In pertinent part, these rules provide:
          Award Number 21699 Page 2 .`

        Docket Number M6'-21421


"Rule 3--CLASSES

 Each occupation in the several subdepartments shall constitute a class, and be listed by class in numerical sequence, the lowest number designating the highest class and the highest number designating the lowest class. Such seaauence shall be determined by Section (f) of Rule 26."

 "Rule 5--SE"V.LORITY

 Seniority Established and Confined to Sub-Denartment---
 (a) Seniority rights of all employes are confined to the sub-department in which employed. Seniority of employes in all sub-de-oartments shall be shown by classes and each occupation shall constitute a class. Each class shall be listed in numerical order beginning with number one (1), which shall designate the highest class, and the highest number shall designate the lowest class.."

 "Rule 8--QUALIFICATIONS

 rile Application--
 (a) An' employe covered by this Agreement desiring to qualify for a class in which he holds no seniority within his subdepartment and seniority district shall file written application of such desire with the individual designated by the Company to receive such notice and with the General Chairman or his desigra=ed representatives.

                                              I

        Award Number 21699 Page 3

        Docket Number MW-21421


r~'lnployes who have filed written application, as above referred to, will be accorded cooperation by the employes' immediate supervisor in obtaining on-the-job training in order to acquire proficiency in the class for which application was made.

 Examinations---
 (b) At periodic intervals when service requirements indicate an expected future need for additional employes to meet the requirements in a class, employes who have filed written application to qualify for service in such class shall, in the order of their first seniority date in the seniority district, and after having passed any required physical and/or written examinations, be accorded a fair chance to demonstrate their ability to meet the practical requirements of the class. An employe meeting the necessary requirements will be furnished a certificate of qualification and accorded a seniority date in the class as of the date when such requirements have been met.

 Failure to Qualify---
 (c) An employe who fails to meet the necessary requirements shall be advised in writing of the reason or reasons therefor and he shall not be privileged to again make application to qualify for the same class for 90 days, but shall not be precluded from making application to qualify for other classes during such period. An employe may not make application under the provisions of this rule to qualify for a specific class more than twice."
                    Award Nl=ber 216Page 4

                    Docket Number MW-R421


              "RULE 26--BASIS OF COMT'NSA^1_Ci1J.


              "(f) CLASS AND WAGE SCHEDULE.


                    "Bridge and Builddro Sub-Departmert


              170. Class Basic Rate Effective 1-1-74

                            Monthly Hourly Hourly

                            Rate Equivalent Rate


              26 (Carpenter (Class A) 5.2001

              (Carpenter (Class B) 5.1447

                  (Carpenter (Class C) 5.1078


Basically, we must decide whether Claimant, vireo already had standing as a Class B Carpenter, was covered by the provisiors of Rule 8 - Qsalifications, when he applied for the position of Class A, Car penter on April 17, 1974 and two days later, found such application rejected.

 We have given consideration to the arguments of Carrier and the Petitioner here and have concluded that Claimant was entitled to the protection of Rule 8. We do not quarrel with Carrier's argument that Class 26, comprised of Class A, B and C Carpenters, constitutes one class of emDloyes for purposes of seniority and the publishing of seniority rosters. Tole further do not quarrel with management's statement that it has the right to determine fitness and ability. In fact, in our recent Award 20724, between the same parties and interpreting some of the same rules, we recognized this principle to be controlling.
                      Award Number 21(6999 Page 5

                      Docket Number W-21421


                                                            I


However, we find that Claimant's application to qualify for a position as Class A Carpenter was properly filed pursuant to Rule 8. We think that a reasonable interpretation of Rule 8, along with the other pertinent rules of the agreem qualify for various Classes of Carpenters within the General Class of Carpenters (Class 26) should follow the organized and understood procedures of Rule 8. Otherwise, it would seem impossible for employes entering Class 26 as a Class C Carpenter to ever advance to .a higher paying Class A Carpenter.

 Considering the foregoing, we have concluded that under the facts and circumstances of this case, management erred when it sumarily rejected Claimant's filed application to qualify as a Class A Carpenter and further erred when it did not advise Claimant, in writing, the reason for this rejection, as is required by Rule 8(c). Having considered Claimant's application unacceptable from the outset, Carrier was at least obli requirements he was deficient in so that he could take corrective measures to hopefully meet the minimum requirements when he again submitted his application under Rule 8(a).

 . As to a remedy in light of these facts and circumstances and the avDlication of Rule 8, the rule clearly recognizes that management retains the right to dQtermine fitness and ability and also distinctly recognizes that it is ttanagement's prerogative to determine when the requirements of the service indicate that additional employes may be needed to meet the requirements in a class: Accordingly,.we hold that Claimant, if he desires, may file another application for Class A Carpenter pursuant to the provisions of Rule 8(a) and be accorded cooperation in obtaining on the job training by his immediate supervisor: After that, it torshe provisions of Rules 8(b) and (c).

          FP-iDIN7--: 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;
                                                            i


                      Award Number 216cc Page 6

                      Docke a Number rr-7-21421


                                                            I


          That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over

the dispute involved herein; and

          That the Agreement was violated.


                        A W A R D


          Claim sustained to the extent indicated in our opinion.


                              NATIOTZk=. RAII-TZOAD ADjJSTVENT BOA.JD

                                By Order of Third Division !


                                                            i


ATTEST:
        Executive Secretary


                                                        i


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, t:.is 29th day of September 1977.

                                                            .I


                                    C,T 2 ? 1977 J·! J. BERG P / I


                                                            i