(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

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

 (1) The Agreement was violated when the position of assistant foreman as advertised by Bulletin SG-34 and certain other positions as machine operator were awarded to applicants junior to Trackman M. G. Marion (System File B-1793/D9784).







OPINION OF BOARD: The pivotal question before this Board is whether Claimant
 was unjustly treated or discriminated against when the
 assistant foreman's position, for which he applied, was awarded to another
 employe on June 19, 1978. An unjust treatment investigation was held on
 October 27, 1978 pursuant to Agreement Rule 91(b) to determine whether Carrier
 improperly denied his position bid application and it was determined, upon the
 record compiled at that forum, that he was unqualified for this position. Clai
 mant has appealed this disposition.

 In his defense, he avers that his seniority date in Class I of the Track Sub-Department entitles him to this position, since he was senior to the other employe and that he possessed the requisite ability and merit to perform the position's duties.
 Award Number 23200
 Docket Number M·1-23195

 Page 2

 Carrier contests these avermants and argues that he was unqualified for this promotion and, thus, his seniority would not prevail as per Agreement, Rule 33 where ability and merit must be sufficient. It contends he did not submit a written request in his own handwriting that he was interested in the Apprentice Foreman Training Program and that he was not recommended for this program by his supervisor.

 In our review of this case, we must concur with Carrier's determination. Recognizing the seriousness of his allegations, particularly the discriminatory tone that he contends enveloped the selection decision, we painstakingly reviewed the investigative transcript to determine his qualifications and whether a subtle bias inhered in the selection decision. Outside of his vitriolic and scattered assertions that Carrier promoted other persons who were unqualified, he did not offer substantive evidence that he was indeed qualified. The purpose of an unjust treatment investigation is to permit an aggrieved employe the opportunity to present evidence that he was qualified and, at least, the equal in ability and merit to the applicant selected. It is designed to be a scrutinous process. From the record developed at the October 27 investigation, we do not find that Claimant or his supportive witnesses presented the kind of technical proof that is needed to adjudge fairly and objectively the scope and depth of his ability for the assistant foreman's position. To the contrary, we find that he didn't adduce sufficient evidence to establish his credentials. The record does not show that Carrier manifested bias in the selection of that position and we are constrained by these clear findings to deny the claim.

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.

 ATTEST: G~I~I·u

NATIONAL RAILR~ 'ADJUSTMENP BOARD
 By Order of Third--,D gion-

 Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 27th day of February 1981.