(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
 PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
 (Lake Superior & Ishpeming Railroad Company

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

 (1) The Agreement was violated when the position of assistant mechanic as advertised in Bulletin No. 5 was awarded to an applicant junior to Section Laborer R. C. Wiitala.





OPINION OF BOARD: On February 16, 1978, Carrier issued Bulletin No. 5
 soliciting applications for Assistant Mechanic's
 position Located at Carrier's Eagle Mills facility. Prospective applicants
 were given till 5:00 P. M. on February 27, 1978 to file bids for the position.
 The following qualifications were set forth by the aforementioned Bulletin.

In all, Carrier received two (2) applications fot the Assistant Mechanic position, one filed by the Claimant, Sectionman Ron C. Wiitala and the other. filed by a less senior Sectionman, Harold Wayne Woodruff. On date of February 28, 1978, Carrier issued a conmwnique to the Maintenance of Way Department Employes titled "Assignment No. 5" apprising them that Sectionman Woodruff had been awarded the Assistant Mechanic position stating that it considered Woodruff to be the most qualified applicant for the position.


The Organization alleges that in promoting the less senior employe, Mr. Woodruff over the Claimant, Mr. Wiitala, the Carrier violated several rules of the Controlling Agreement bearing effective date of January 1, 1972, but primarily Rule 16 which reads as follows:

        "Promotion shall be based on ability and seniority. Ability being sufficient, seniority shall prevail."


The Organization argues that on the basis of his previous work experience, the Claimant does, in fact, possess sufficient ability to perform the duties of the Assistant Mechanic position and therefore, the Claimant, being the more senior employe should have been promoted over Woodruff. Furthermore, the Organization notes, the Carrier never maintained the Claimant was not sufficiently able but rather that Woodruff was the most qualified of the two. The Organization recognized that both employes were sufficiently able, but argues that under such circumstances Rule 16 clearly dictates that the most senior of the bidders will be awarded the position and not the most qualified.

        Upon a thorough and analytical review of the record, we can find

nothing of a substantive nature to show the Claimant did not possess
 sufficient ability. On the contrary, according to the Carrier's Chief
 Engineer, T. 0. Stokke, in a letter dated May 22, 1978, to the Organization's
 General Chairman, Ferdinand Schrank, Stokke stated that based on comparative
 qualifications, Woodruff was considered by the Carrier to be "much more
 qualified." Further in the same letter, Stokke asserted, "It is still our
 (the Carrier's) opinion Mr. Woodruff is the most qualified . · " This
 position, we believe, in no way suggests the Claimant was not sufficiently
 able to perform duties of the Assistant Mechanic position, and that quite
 the opposite appears to be the truth, that is, that Claimant was sufficiently
 able even though he may have possessed lesser credentials than those held
 by Mr. Woodruff. We therefore reiterate our position set forth as follows
 in Award 8181 as being on point in the instant case in which we held:

        "Rule 7 is unambiguous. Its clear intent is that an employe's right of promotion to any position for which he has 'fitness and ability' depends upon seniority alone in spite of the possibly superior 'fitness and ability' of an employe junior to him. The rule can have no other meaning. 'Fitness and ability being sufficient, seniority shall prevail.' His fitness and ability need not be greater than, or even equal to, that of junior applicants; his fitness and ability need be merely sufficient for the purpose. On the other hand, if he has not fitness and

                      Award Number 22847 Page 3

                      Docket Number MW-22867


        "ability for the position (or, to follow more closely the words of the rule, if his fitness and ability are not sufficient,) his service, however long, will not qualify him for it."


Based on the foregoing, it is our determination that the claim be sustained. Claimant shall be allowed the difference between what he earned as a Section Laborer and what he would have earned as an Assistant Mechanic had he been awarded the position originally beginning with the date of Mr. Woodruff's initial assignment thereto and ending May 8, 1978, the date Claimant accepted the position of Trackliner Foreman by Assignment No. 9, that position being a higher rated position than the Assistant Mechanic.

        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 violated.


                      A W A R D


        Claim sustained.


                            NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                            By Order of, Third Division


        ATTEST: ~ Executive Secretary


        Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 16th day of May 1980.