(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamehip Clerks, ( Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE; (Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad Company
 STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood (GI~8759) that;

1) Carrier violated and continues to violate the Seniority, Promotion, Bulletin, Assignment, and related rules of the Clerks' Agreement when it arbitrarily refused Employe position in the Regional Accounting Department in Seattle, Washington.

 2) Carrier shall be required to recognize Employe D. G. Olson's contractual rights and his application for the position of Chief Revising Clerk, assign him to that position, and compensate him an additional eight (8) hours pay at the rate of $58.54 for each workday commencing July 11, 7977 and continuing until placed ther
3) Carrier shall pay Employe D. G. Olson interest at the current rate on the amount of reparation due in Item (2) above compounded annually on the anniversary date of this claim.

 OPINION OF BOARD: This dispute relates to another claim filed by petitioner,
 namely, his claim in, Award No. 23047 that he was tmjust y
 treated when he applied for the Revising Clerk-Grade A position No. 8
 July, 1977. In the instant claim Claimant argues that he was also unjustly
 treated when he submitted a bid application for the Chief Revising Clerk's posi
 tion No. 89740 in Seniority District No. 45, circa June, 1977, and was rejected
 in favor of a junior employe who was selected to fill this position on July 11,
 1977.

 Similar to his contentions in the other dispute, Claimant asserts that he possessed sufficient ability and fitness within the judicially interpretative meaning of Rule 7 to be given an opportunity to qualify for the Chief Revising Clerk's position consistent with the requirements of Rule 8. Carrier, contrawise, contends that he i
In our review of the July 22, 1977 investigative transcript we concur with Carrier that he was unqualified for this position at the time he submitted his application. We recognize that his educational training and tariff experience


were presumptive indicators of ability, but we do not believe that he was truly qualified for the Chief Revising Clerk's position.

 For example, our detailed analysis of this position clearly reveals a higher level of technical skills and general management duties which were beyond the position expectations sad requirements of the Revising Clerk-Grade A Position. These distinctions are not nuancial or superficially different. He did not have the background and hands-on experience to manage and direct other Revising Clerks or the definable experience to handle the Chief Revising Clerk's duties. It might well be reasonable to postulate that Claimant would learn these duties once on the job, but many other moderately talented unqualified employes

 is case is whether rated jobs, if given the opportunity. What
 Nether Claimant was qualified as evidenced by an acceptable modicum of sufficient fitness and ability per Rule 7 and whether Carrier arbitrarily disregarded his qualifications The record does not show either contention. His bid application was properly rejected.

 This Board will not burden the record with extensive citations of case law on the employer's indisputable right to determine fitness and ability standards for Positions. But we think that Third Division Award 16871'8 basic conclusion succinctly articulates this right and its legal parameters. It states:

Claimant did not establish persuasively that he was fit to assume the Chief Revising Clerk's Position and Carriers rejection of his bid application was neither capricious nor inconsistent with its right to determine qualifications. We will reject the claim.



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;
                  Docket Number CL-22910 Page 3


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:- i
 Executive Secretary

 Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 14th day of November 1980.