(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks, PARTIES 10 DISPUTE: ( Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employee



1. Company violated the Agreement between the Parties when on October 21, 1977 it awarded Position No. 258, PAL (Passenger Assistance Link) Operator to Clerk Wanda Sukta, junior in seniority to Claimant Julie A. Leslie, in violation of Rules 6, 8 and 10, among others, of the Clerks' Agreement.

 2. Company shall now be required to compensate Claimant for each and every workday at the rate of $55.32 per day for Position No.258, PAL Operator, until this claim is resolved beginning October 21, 1977.

 OPINION OF HOARD: The instant case deals with a fitness and ability dispute;
 involving Rules 6, 8 and 10 of the Agreement between the
 parties.

 The Claimant was not assigned to a "Passenger Assistance Link Operator" position when it was open for bid in October, 1977. Instead, a junior employe was assigned.
because she had sufficient fitness and ability and had nine (9) days' training
 on the position eighteen months earlier. Carrier contends that nine (9) days'
 training eighteen months earlier was insufficient to qualify on a "PAL" posi
 tion because (1) the length of training was insufficient and (2) the character
 of the positios`has changed in the eighteen month interval since Claimant had
 trained;op;to~ °I~~\t\ion.

 Ther-e/is proof in the Record that the nine (9) day training period Clsimbparcipated in some eighteen months prior to seeking the assignment did, Q fact, qualify her for the assignment. Additionally, there i~-~. ,proof i4,,t11%peftcord that Claimant was qualified for the position as it existed, not at the time of training, but at the time of the contemplated assignment. In view of this proof deficiency, the claim will be denied.


        FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all '..:e 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 not violated.


                      A W A R D


        Claim denied.


                            NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                            By Order of Third Division


ATTEST: zoel.04444e"o


      Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this Pith day of January 1982.

                                    it CEl VEO °`

                                    ULAN 25PA2


                                      000

                                          . g!~`