Joseph A. Sickles, Referee


                (Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employee

PARTIES TO DISPf?rE:
                (Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company


STATEMBNT OF CLAIM: "Claim of the~System Committee of the Brotherhood that:

 (1) The Carrier violated the Agreement when it assigned and used A. Hicks instead of P. A. Boles to fill vacation vacancies of welder at the Savannah Rail Welding Plant beginning in July 1978 (System File C-4.(36)-PAB/ 12-8(79-20) J).

 (2) Claimant P. A. Boles shall be allowed the difference in what he received as welder helper sad what he should receive at the welder's rate of pay beginning is July 1978 and continuing until October 1, 1978."

                OPINION OF BOARD: An individual who was junior to the Claimant was used to fill a temporary position of Welder at the Savannah plant.


The position at issue was a vacation relief vacancy and the junior employee was used because the Claimant was not qualified to operate the welding machine at that. period of time. Further the Carrier disputes the basis for the claim an the grounds that the vacation relief position is not a training position.

 While the matter was snider review on the property, the Carrier indicated that the Claimant did not seek to perform work unless absolutely necessary because of a physical condition and that after he became qualified to operate the welding machine he has bees used for relief is that regard.

 The Organization insists that the Claimant was net qualified to perform work an the welding machine in question because the Carrier had never afforded him the opportunity to qualify even though, according to the Organization, the Claimant made known his desire to be qualified.

                                            r

We have considered the Award cited by the Organization sad have paid particular attention to Third Division Award No: 16960 which held that training of personnel to handle new equipment is a joint responsibility and that the initiation must come from management. Nonetheless, is order to sustain a claim such as this there must be a showing that the Carrier refused to take reasonable - steps to qualify the senior employe under all of the circumstances of record. The Carrier has given rather plausible reasons for the fact that a junior employe qualified prior to the senior employe and we find no basis to rule that there was a contractual violation is this particular case, under these facts of record.
 Award Number 24093
 Docket Number NW-23694

 Page 2

        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 Employee 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: Acting Executive Secretary
        National Railroad Adjustment Board


NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
 By Order of Third Division

 BY
 Rosemarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant

 Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 5th day of January 1983.