Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks,
 Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employes
 PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
 (St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Company

1. Carrier violated the agreement between the parties, especially Rules 3, 7, 8 and 21 when it failed and refused to use extra list employee E. L. Langston on a vacancy in the Engineering Department on each date of August 21, 22 and 23, 1978.

 2. Account violation of Rules 3, 7, 8 and 21 of the current effective agreement, extra Clerk E. L. Langston shall now be allowed the difference she received for each date of August 21, 22 and 23, 1978, and the rate of the vacancy to which her seniority entitled her. The amounts are $8·59 for August 21, $5.40 for August 22 and $8.59 for August 23, 1978.

 OPINION OF BOARD: At the time of this dispute, Claimant, E. L. Langston., was
 assigned to the Clerk's Extra List in Carrier's General
 Office Building in Springfield, Missouri. This Extra Board List is maintained
 to fill vacancies of regular assigned employes due to vacations, illnesses, etc.
 On August 21 - 23, 1978, a vacancy existed, in the Assistant Chief Clerk position
 located in the Engineering Department of the General Office Building. Carrier .filled
 this vacancy with an extra list employe junior to Claimant.

 The Organization claim that Carrier's action in using a junior employe to protect the vacancy violated the Agreement. The Organization's argument is primarily based on Rule 7 which states:







            NOTE: The word "sufficient" is intended to more clearly establish the right of the senior employe where two or more employes have adequate fitness and ability."


Carrier, on the other hand, argues that it did not violate the Agreement. As a preliminary matter. Carrier asserts that the claim should be dismissed since Claimant did not exhaust her contractural remedy under Rule 32 of the Clerk's Agreement. In Ca-pier's view, since neither Claimant or the Organization asked for an "Unfair Hearing" the claim should be dismissed.

 As to the merits, Carrier contends that Claimant lacked the requisite fitness and ability to perform the work of the Assistant Chief Clerk position. It insists that Claimant's record. during the days she had worked the position in the past demonstrates that she could not satisfactorily perform the duties of the position.

        Rule 32 states:


            "UNJUST TREATMENT


            Rule 32. An employe who considers himself otherwise unjustly treated shall have the same right of hearing and appeal as provided above if written request is made to his immediate superior within fifteen days of the cause for complaint."


A reading of this Rule convinces us that Carrier's argument that the Organization's failure to request such a hearing requires dismissing the charge, is without merit. This is not the meaning contemplated by the parties when th 32. While we do agree that a Rule 32 hearing may well be of assistance in developing the facts of whether an employe has been unjustly treated, we must reject any contention that resort to such a to this Hoard. That is, the failure to seek a Rule 32 hearing cannot be construed as a failure to exhaust the internal procedure barring resort to this Board. For us to so find would require us to rewrite Rule 49, The Grievance Procedure. This, of course, we are neither inclined or empowered to do.
                    Award Number 23063 Page 3

                    Docket N=ber M.-22948


        The failure of a claimant to avail himself of the opportunity

provided by Rule 32 may, in proper cases, make it impossible for the claimant to establish the facts necessary to show that he had the requisite fitness and abili
cannot be viewed as a jurisdictional defect requiring this Board to dismiss a claim.

 Thus, the real issue is whether Carrier's failure to assign Claimant to the vacancy violated Rule 7. That is, did Claimant possess

 the requisite fitness and ability to perform the assignment when it was awarded.

 Carrier argued both on the property and is its submissions to this Board that Claimant was not able to perform the job duties. It insisted that Claimant demonstrated her deficiencies during the twenty days she covered the position. Specifically, Carrier maintained that Claimant did the payroll
rectly and was not able to take the necessary dictation. These deficiencies had to be corrected
This Board had repeatedly and consistently held that Carrier's determination as to an employe's fitness and ability for a position under a Seniority rule such as Rule 7 will not be overturned unless the Organization establishes that Carrier's judgment was arbitrary unreasonable. See Awards 22892, 21328, 20878, 20631, 17612, and 17489. Here, there is absolutely no evidence that Carrier acted in an arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable fashion. On the contrary, Carrier's determination was based on an observa the position. There is no basis for overturning its assessment. As such, we will dismiss the claim in its entirety.

        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 Chrrier and Employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934;
 Award Number 23063
 Docket Number CL-22948

 Page 4

 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.

 ATTEST:

 P1ATIONAL RAILROAD ADJt1SUEGT BOARD
 By Order of Third Division

 Executive Secretary

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