(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks, ( Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (Elgin, Joliet and Eastern Railway Company


1. Carrier violated the effective Clerks Agreement when it failed and refused to return Clerks J. M. Keles, M. A. Wadman and P. K. Eldridge to service in the order of their seniority, but rather, recalled employes junior in service to Claimants;
2. Carrier shall now compensate the above-named Claimants for eight (8) hours pay at the rate of the position they would have worked, or at the extra board guaranteed rate, whichever is applicable, commencing March 9, 1981, and for each and every day thereafter that a like violation occurs.
OPINION OF BOARD: The Claimants were furloughed employes, each with medical
 restrictions limiting the range of their work activities.
 In selecting three furloughed employes for extra board positions, the Carrier
 bypassed the three Claimants and awarded the positions to three less senior
 employes. The Organization argues that the Claimants were improperly deprived
 of these positions and should have been assigned to the extra board and given
 such work as within their physical limitations.
The Carrier argues that the bulletin for these positions (and generally for all extra board positions) specified that selected employes "Must be physically capable of performing all duties of positions protected by the Extra Board." This has been the established practice, according to the Carrier. The Organization's General Chairman seemed knowledgeable of this practice when he stated in correspondenc "We are ... aware that the Carrier had, in the past, taken the position chat only employes physically capable of performing the duties of any position covered thereby would be assigned to the extra board."
The General Chairman thereafter noted that an exception had been made to this practice by the Carrier in placing an employe (who was restricted from driving a vehicle) on the extra board. A single instance, however, does not negate a practice.
                    Locket Number CL-24546


More significantly, however, the Organization argues that this restriction is unilaterally imposed by the Carrier and is not contained in Supplement No. 20, the Memorandum of Agreement governing the extra board. In addition, the Memorandum states:
            "9. If an extra employe is not qualified

        to fill a position for which he stands, to be _

        called, he need not be called to fill the position

        and the position may be filled by the next out

        employe who is qualified ...^.


The Board finds, in concurrence with the Carrier's view, that the issue here is not "qualification" -- involving the training, knowledge and experience in a particular assignment -- but rather "fitness" (i.e., absence of physical limitation).
        Rule 8 states in pertinent part as follows:


        "... assignments ... shall be based on seniority, fitness and ability, fitness and ability being sufficient, seniority shall prevail.^


Clearly the "fitness" of the three Claimants was lacking insofar as some of the assignments to which they might be called as members of the extra board. The board finds that the established practice noted above in reference to extra board assignment is in conformance with Rule 8. By their individual medical restrictions, the claimants did not lose their "qualification" for certain duties, but were in fact without the necessary "fitness" for the variety of assignments to which their extra board assignment would call them (and for which they would be receiving extra board pay quarantee).
The Board finds that the Carrier acted within the provisions of Rule 8 and in accord with established and recognized practice thereunder (despite a single exception noted by the organization).
        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 Employe 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 .lgreement was not violated.

          Award Number 24585 Page 3

                    Docket Number CL-24545

                    A d A R D


        Claim denied.


                              NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOAPC

                              By Order of Third Division


          ' Attest:

                ·r


        Nancy J. /e; r - Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois this 15th day of December 1983.