(Brotherhood of Railroad Signal men
 PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
 (Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Rai-woad Company
 ( (William M. Gibbons, Trustee)

 STATEINZNT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of the Prot: erhood
 of Railroad Signalmen on the Chicago, Rock Island
 and Pacific Railroad Company:

 (a) On or about August 5, 1975 the carrier violated the current signalmen's agreement especially rule 55 ·Anen it disqualified signalman E. M. Meincke for 2nd trick signal maintainer's position at Kelly retarder yard.

 (b) Carrier now be required to place Signalman E. M. reincke to the position of 2nd trick maintainers position at Kelly retarder yard, and compensate her for all the time lost subsequent to August 5, 1975.

OPETION OF BOARD: This is a "fitness and ability" dispute in which
 Claimant was disqualified after one day on a
 signal maintainer position. The relevant rule provides:



The undisputed facts are that Claimant, after being bumped, exercised ner displacement rights to tae position of 2nd trick Signal Maintainer at Kelly retarder yard. After one day her s,;:--ervisor discussed her abili and, with tier agreement, aadvized her that she was not quali_'ied tv Derform the duties of the -oOsition.


The Organization argues that she was not aiven the full 20 days in which to qualify and there was no objective evidence to sustain the decision to disqualify her. Additionally, it is pointed out that she was not afforded training opportunities to acquire higher skills on the basis of patent sex discrimination by the Carrier. The Carrier denies the allegations of the Organization and points out that Claimant herself agreed that she did not have the requisite skills.

 It is clear that the issue of sex discrimination and tube lack of prior training opportunity for Claimant is not within the Durrview of the Claim herein; it was neither raised initially nor is that issue timely. Had there been prior deprivation of opportunity for Claimant, that issue should have surfaced and been raised by Petitioner at that time.

 It is so well established that it is urnecessary to cony ent on Carrier's right to judge the qualifications of employes. However, it -must be ree"ohasized that once Carrier has made the determination that an employe is not qualified, the burden of proving otherwise shifts to Claimant. In this case not only has that burden not been met, but Claimant admitted that she was not qualified and should be disqualified. The Claim must be denie
        FUTDI3dGS: The Third D=vision 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 E.^cplcyes 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

        =at the Agreement was n,a violated.

                  Award Number 21910 Pete

                                                  3

                  Docket Number SG-21788

                  A Y7 A R D


        Claim denied.


                          EATICNAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BCARD


                              Order of Third Division


ATTEST: Ali

        Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 28Th day of February 1978.