PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of

On behalf of P. A. Hollins for the difference in pay between an assistant signalman and signalman, that his seniority rights be restored in the signalman class, and that he be placed back on the signalmari fob he was on prior to being disqualified, because Carrier violated Rule 2(e)(4) and (7) of the Signalmen's Agreement." (General Chairman file: SR-150. Carrier file: SG-1127)

 OPINION OF BOARD: The Claimant was promoted to the position of Signalman as
 of September 3, 1979, and was notified of his disqualification
 on November 6, 1979.

 The Organization has made two contentions in support of the claim: First, that the Claimant had not been given a fair opportunity to qualify because he was not afforded a period of sixty-five eight-hour days of service, allegedly required by the Agreement, to show sufficient aptitude to learn the work. Second, that the Claimant was disqualified for reasons unrelated to his work performance.

 The record shows that the Claimant's mediate supervisor had given him detailed unsatisfactory ratings for each of three successive time periods of his service in the course of the assignment. The Organization has not persuasively challenged the controlling weight of this significant evidence.

 The Board does not read the phrase "within a period of sixty-five eight-hoes days of service" as it appears in Rule 2(e)(4) to mean that the employe must remain in the assignment for that entire number of days before he may be disqualified. In our view, the language permits the Carrier to judge the employe to be unqualified on the basis of his performance during such period of time before the completion of sixty-five eight-hour days of service as may be reasonable is the particular circumstances. (See Third Division Award No. 13+71). We reject the Organization's contrary interpretation.

 Thus it has been 'clearly established that the disqualification was properly based on significant negative work-related evaluations justifying the Carrier's action before the end of the sixty-five day period.

 The Board concludes on this record that the Carrier's determination of November 6, 1979, constituted a reasonable exercise of its authority to fudge whether the Claimant had shown sufficient aptitude to learn the work of
                    Docket Number SG-21+062


e Signalman. Accordingly, we may not disturb the determination. (See: Third Division Awards Nos. 11780; 2121+3; 27.328; 21676).

 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 Carrier and Employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 193+;

 That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction aver the dispute involved herein; and

        That the Agreement was not violated.


                        A W A R D


        Claim denied.


                            NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSThENT BOARD

                            By Order of Third Division


Attest: Acting Executive Secretary
 National Railroad Adjustment Board

 BY
 Rosemarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant

 Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 13th day of May, 1982.

                                        ~.`=.C.~ I

                                        i/


                                      ;%

                                      ~~ n _ . i I


                                        \ , 1~4

                                          L


                                          a,