PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
"This is to serve notice, as required by the rules of the National Railroad Adjustment Board, of my intention to file an ex parte submission on July 8, 1983, covering an unadjusted dispute between me and the Consolidated Rail Corporation.
The claim involves my disqualification on to position No. 85 as a steno-clerk on March 12, 1982. This disqualification was in violation of Rule 9 of the agreement between Consolidated Rail Corporation and the Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks, by not allowing me the full thirty (30) days to qualify in the position. In addition, the carrier violated Rule 9 by arbitrarily disqualifying me from the position. Further, the carrier is in violation of Rule 44 of the aforementioned agreement inasmuch as they refused to grant an unjust treatment hearing to me concerning my allegations regarding Rule 9.
Please also be advised, that pursuant to the rules of the National Railroad Adjustment Board I am designating Thomas J. Caserta, Jr., Esq., whose address appears above as my representative and ask that all future correspondence be forwarded to him."
OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant, Lorraine Caserta, was disqualified on position
 No. 85 as Steno-Clerk on March 12, 1982. Claimant alleges that Carrier's action violates Rules 9 and 44 of the Agreement.
The basic facts are not in dispute. On February 17, 1982, Claimant displaced into Position 85. Carrier on March 12, 1982, and prior to the expiration of 30 days, disqualified Claimant. The stated reason was that Claimant was unqualified to take investigation, which was part of the advertised duties of the position.
Claimant disagreed with Carrier's determination. She argued that she was qualified to perform the job.
Claimant requested a hearing under the terms of Rule 44. Carrier denied the request.
Claimant argues that Carrier's failure to allow her the full thirty days to qualify violates the terms of Rule 9. In addition, Claimant asserts that Carrier's failure to provide her with an unjust treatment hearing violates Rule 44.
















First, Rule 9 specifies that Carrier may remove an employe from a position, after a conference with the Local Chairman, when it is evident that an employe will not qualify for the position. Thus, in such an instance, it is unnecessary for Carrier to wait the full 30 days to disqualify an applicant. (See Award 24045.)
Here, the record evidence amply supports Carrier's conclusion that Claimant would be unable to qualify. Accordingly, her disqualification was not premature.
As to Claimant's desire for an unjust treatment hearing, the specific language of Rule 44 indicates that such a hearing is not available to an employe in every instance. Instead, it is only available where the issue is not addressed in some other portion of the Agreement. This is the meaning of the phrase, °otherwise than covered by these rules".
The issue of disqualification within thirty days is specifically addressed in Rule 9(b). The parties have agreed that Carrier has reasonable discretion in this area. As such, the issue is covered by the rules of the Agreement and, therefore, there is no basis for requiring an unjust treatment hearing.
Accordingly, neither Rules 9 nor 44 were violated when Carrier disqualified Claimant from Position 85. Therefore, the claim must be denied in its entirety.






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




        Claim denied.


                          NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                          By Order of Third Division


Attest:
        Nancy J.~ er - Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois this 30th day of November 1984.