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

(a) The Southern Pacific Transportation Company violatsed the current Clerks' Agreement when it arbitrarily-ana carpici-ously ZsiJ rejected Claire R. Carle's application for Position No. 517 Rate Clerk, on contention that she was obviously not immediately qualified therefore 5i); and, ...

 (b) The Southern Pacific Transportation Company shall now be required to allow Claire R. Carle eight (8) hours' compensation at the rate of Position No. 517 September 24, 1974 and each work day thereafter until she is placed thereon
OPINION OF BOARD: Carrier's right to make the initial determination
 of a bidder's fitness and ability is undisputed in
 this case. The question is whether such right was exercised properly
 in light of Rule 27 and the NOTE thereto.





                  Docket Number CL-21733


                "ability. In such cases the senior employe will be awarded the position unless it is obvious he cannot qualify. Employes shall be given cooperation in their efforts to qualify."


Petitioner contends that Carrier arbitrarily and capriciously rejected claimant's application for position No. 517 Ra.te Clerk because: (1) She did not have prior rating experience. (2) She had zero ability otherwise. (3) She had shown no interest in learning rate work. (4) She could not be trained because the current staff was overloaded, notwithstanding it had trained employes in the past who were not qualified.

 The Carrier argues that claimant lacked necessary minimum qualifications to fulfill the duties required for the position, and that no evidence of probative value was presented to show that Carrier acted capriciously or arbitrarily or to counter Carrier's position that claimant lacked the requisite knowledge.

 "Fitness and ability" was defined by Referee Robertson in Award 5348 as "such training, experience and character as to raise a reasonable probability that he would be able to perform all of the duties of the position within a reasonable time." This view was adopted by other referees in later cases, most recently Award 21107, which recognized that:

        " . ..it is not necessary for an applicant to be immediately qualified to assume all the duties of the position without some assistance or training, or at least a break in or trial period. However, there must be a reasonable probability that the employee would be able to perform all the duties of the position within a reasonable period of time. If the employe is obviously unfit or unqualified, as in a situation where the job in question requires a high degree of skill which can be acquired only after a long period of training and there is no evidence that the employe has these skills or related skills, then the carrier is not required to give him or her a trial period."

                  Award Number 21986 Page 3

                  Docket Number CL-21733


This Board believes that fitness and ability should be judged in the manner indicated in the foregoing opinion. No proof was offered that claimant could perform the duties of Rate Clerk within a reasonable time, and testimony of the Chief Clerk regarding her training, experience and level of knowledge and testimony of the Chief Rate Clerk regarding the minimum requirements of the position, indicates that she probably could not so qualify. The Chief Clerk stated she could not qualify within six months, and no evidence of her ability to qualify within a shorter period was offered. It is not reasonable to provide six months trial or on-the-job training, in this Board's opinion.

 Petitioner urged special attention be given that portion of the NOTE to Rule 27 providing that the senior employe will be awarded the position unless it is obvious he cannot qualify. That clause commences "In such cases...," referring to situations where the carrier is choosing between two or more employes having adequate fitness and ability, and does not apply in this case.

 The contract language here involved, or similar language, has been interpreted in numerous prior awards cited by the parties. The prevailing view is that the carrier's determination should not be overturned unless the employe clearly establishes his fitness and ability, or proves that the carrier acted arbitrarily or capriciously. (See 3273, 14288, 14736, 17079 and 21119<)

 Having concluded that petitioner did not meet the burden of overcoming Carrier's initial determination of lack of sufficient fitness and ability, we address the question of whether the supervisor making that determination acted arbitrarily or capriciously. His decision was based upon his personal opinion, formulated from knowledge of claimant's previous work experience and his estimate of her ability to perform the work of the position. There is no proof of hostility in the record. The fact that the rejection of claimant's bid permitted the selection of a bidder who had held the position previously may have been to the supervisor's liking, but the record contains no proof that it influenced his determination that claimant lacked the minimum requirements. The supervisor's failure to learn of some of claimant's prior efforts to acquire rate experience is immaterial, as her testimony shows he would have found that such efforts were abandoned in the early stages, and the record does not establish that any appreciable knowledge was gained from any outside source or from handling files.
 .--.

                  Award Number 21986 Page 4

                  Docket Number Ch-21733


The Board finds that the Carrier acted in good faith and no violation of the agreement occurred.

        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 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

        That the Agreement was not violated.


                  A W A R D.


        Claim, denied.


                      NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                      By Order of Third Division


        ATTEST: Executive Secretary


        Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 31st day of March 1978.


                                      i_


                                  .~ K iaPR 1_9 ~G~