(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and
 ( Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers,
 ( Express and Station Employes
 PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
 (Illinois Central Gulf Railroad

(a) Carrier violated the Agreement when it wrongfully disqualified Mr. T. L. Sitton from the position of TP-IBM-Yard Clerk at Roodhouse, Illinois on December 20, 1975.

 (b) Carrier now be required to reinstate Claimant T. L. Sitton to the position of TP-IBM-Yard Clerk at Roodhouse, Illinois with pay for all time and all rights unimpaired commencing December 20, 1975.

 (c) Joint check of payroll records is requested by Employees to ascertain the amount due claimant.

 OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant was disqualified from the TP-IBM Yard Clerk
 position at Roodhouse, Illinois, effective December 20,
 1975 regarding his alleged failure to transmit wheel report Train KG-2 from
 Roodhouse to Bloomington, Illinois on October 26, 1975 and his general
 performance of this position's duties. This disposition was appealed on
 the property on both procedural and substantive grounds and is now before
 this Division.

 In reviewing the procedural objections raised in Claimant ex-parte submission, we do not find that the charge in the Notice of Investigation was vague or inconsistent with the clear requirements of Agreement Rule 22 (B). The Notice explicitly stated that the purpose of the investigation was to determine whether Claimant failed to wheel properly Train KG-2 from Roodhouse, Illinois to Bloomington, Illinois on October 26, 1975 and appended for additional consideration his general work performance as TP-IBM Yard Clerk. Moreover, a reading of this Notice does not indicate that Claimant was unaware of the precise focus of the investigation or placed in a disa his developing a competent defense. The October 26, 1975 incident was well within the thirty (30) days requirement of Rule 22(B) and not impaired by the reference to his prior general performance.
                      Docket Number CL-22721


On the other hand, there is some basic tenability to Claimant's position that Carrier's refusal to acknowledge the local chairman's postponement request at the inception of the hearing affected his due process rights, but the record indicates that the local chairman saw the material he requested on the Wednesday preceding the investigation and there is no correlative contractual requirement obligating Carrier to supply it.

 Similarly, it may well be that Claimant was insufficiently trained for this position within the definitional framework and intent of the BRAC Merger Agreement of September 15, 1972, but his right of appeal under any contested violation of Section 11 thereof was pursuant to Section 14 (a) of that Agreement.

 The evidence shows that the consist for Train KG-2 on October 26, 1975 was shown as being wheeled from Kansas City, Missouri to Bloomington, Springfield and Murrayville, Illinois, instead of from Roodhouse, Illinois to these locations and we will not interpose our judgment of how a particular task is to be completed. His past record demonstrates that he was falling short of the position's expected performance standards and the October 26, 1975 incident confirms these earlier observations.

        In Third Division Award 18286, we held in pertinent part that,


        "The determination of an employe's qualification for a position is initially reserved to Carrier. Should Petitioner challenge a Carrier's finding of disqualification, to prevail, it has the burden of provi factual evidence of probative value that the affected employe did possess the necessary qualifications and

      __-had performed them within normally accepted standards ...."


We do not find that Claimant adduced sufficient evidence within the meaning of this decisional holding to prove that he could handle the TP-IBM Yard Clerk's position and thus we will deny the claim.

        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;
                      Award Number 22852 Page 3

                      Docket Number CL-22721


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: ~/GlIII· PAaI4~-
        xecutive Secretary


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