(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Fmployes PARTIES TO DISPUTE ::
              (The Colorado and. :louthern Railway Company


STAT7-MLNT Or CLAM: "Claim of the Systen Committee of the Brotherhood that:

 (1) The disqualification of ,ohn Martinez as crane operator on March 12, 1979 was without just and sufficient cause (System File C-11-79/MW-408).

 (2) Mr. John Martinez be reinstated as crane operator and be allowed the difference between what he would ha.re received at the crane operator's rate and what he was paid 3t the laborer's rate from March 12.* 1979 until he is returned to work as a crane operator with seniority as such unimpaired."

 OPINION OF BOARD: Ir: this dispute the basic issue before this Board is whether
 tt:e supervisor in charge of Claimant's work activities during the 30 day trial period produced sufficient evidence to demonstrate Claimant's inability to qualify Welfli.ng Plant in Pueblo., Colorada.

 Claimant way: awarded t.Lis position on February 1., 197;0 on a 30 day trial bacit:, hnrsuant to the requircnrntx of Rule l0(e) of the controllinE, Agreement ant] ofricially assigned to the position on February 17, 1]79. ffe was alai provided a six day break in pe:-iod prior to February 7?, 1979. On March.12, 1971, he was apprised by the Plant Supervisor that he was deemed unqualified for the position and was returned to his former position as a Laborer, effective March 13.. 1979. He appealed this. determination.

 In defense of his petition, he contends that he comported with the essential performance standards of the position and challenges Carrier's contention that sufficient evidence was adduced to warrant his disqualification. He argues that he was not properly supervised and trained during the trial period as required by Rule 10(e) and that the rail damage which occurred when he operated the crane was normative for this type of work.

 Carrier argues that he was unable to handle effectively the responsibilities of the crane operat conditions and demonstrated no improvem,·at .in his work. It argues that he experienced conti
                                                        . r


    7


                      Award Number 3516 Page 2

                      Docket ;.,tmber f'd-23480


and ancillary assistance, but that he gas unable to achieve the position's required proficiency level. Specifically, it asserts that because of his mishandling of the crane, e It avers that Rule 10(g) vested it with exclusive authority to determine fitness and qualifications standards and that it exercised this right responsibly and consistent with the intended spirit of Rule 10(e).

 In our review of this case, :re concur with Carrier's position. The record clearly shows that Claimant was afforded ample opportunity and active supervisory assistance to qualify for this position, but that he was unable to meet the performance standards. From the incaption of his trial assignment, he manifested a consistent inability to acquire the competency skills needed for this position and caused considerable .tail demage when he operated the crane. He had difficulties in unloading rail errs arid. keeping the rail racks properly stockpiled and responded slowly to grolrnd crew signals. There is no evidence that Carrier was remiss in providing him adequate training or cooperative assistance and the quantit level of underperformance, which justified his eventual disqualification. Carrier provided him a reasonable opportunity to qualify for the Crane operator's position, and it did not abuse its decisional prerogative, when it disqualified him on March 13, 1979.
        FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, up)n the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:


        That the parties waived oral hearing;


That the Carrier and the Rnlloyes involved in this dispute are reslx:ctively Oarrii·r and blnployes witt:Ln the meaning of the 1t-vilway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934;
That this; Division of the Adjustmert Tsosrd has jurisdiction over the dispute involved h·=rein; and
        That the Agreement was not violated. R~ C EI VEA `d A R D

        Claim denied. ~'_~ 1 i~$?

        ~t


                                        C1c,Bo Office -B~

                              NATIONAL RAILROA ARD

                              !sy Order of Third Division


C~,Cr ./ Da',~.,c

ATTEST: 1, .00
        Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago. lllinoir, thl:: ;' W '1nY ot~ Anniviry 3')fC'.