(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks,
 ( Freight Handlers and Station Employes
 PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
 (Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad Company
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood (GL-9826) that:
1) Carrier violated the Clerks' Rules Agreement at Bensenville, Illinois when it unjustly treated Employe Vivian Morch by not awarding her Train Clerk Position No. 04740 on August 24, 1982.
2) Carrier shall now be required to assign Employe Morch to Train Clerk Position No. 04740 and compensate her an additional eight (8) hours at the pro rata rate of Train Clerk Position No. 04740 for each workday she was held off such position.
OPINION OF BOARD: The Carrier awarded a Train Clerk position to an employe
 junior to Claimant. Although it appears that the position
 Claimant sought paid no more than the Relief Clerk position she then held, the
 Board accepts the proposition that Rule 7 of the Agreement between the Parties
 dealing with "Promotion" governs the outcome in this case. Rule 7 is as follows:






An unjust treatment hearing was conducted on the property on November 3, 1982, at which Mr. J. Playman, ATM-Administration for Carrier was questioned extensively on the basis for his decision to award the position to a person junior to Claimant. while Mr. PZayman's responses appeared sometimes inconsistent as to the criteria he applied in awarding the position, the Transcript as a whole reveals that he selected the employe he regarded as having superior fitness and ability. It further appears that he regarded Claimant's fitness and ability as "not sufficient" because of her admitted need for further training, particularly with respect to '5 card demurrage".
                    Docket Number CL-25444


Rule 7 is clear in its intent. If the fitness and ability of an employe is sufficient or adequate to accomplish the tasks of the position, he or she, if senior to other such applicants, must be awarded that position.
The need for additional on-the-job training of up to thirty days in duration does not denote inadequate or insufficient fitness or ability. That much is clear from Rule 8, which contemplates that such a training period may be necessary. Rule 8 states as follows:
        "RULE 8 - TIME IN WHICH TO QUALIFY


        "(a) When an employe bids for and is assigned to a permanent vacancy or new position he will be allowed thirty (30) working days in which to qualify and will be given full cooperation of department heads and others in his efforts to do so. However, this will not prohibit an employe being removed prior to thirty (30) working days when manifestly incompetent. If an employe fails to qualify, he shall retain all seniority rights but cannot displace a regularly assigned employe. He will be considered furloughed as of date of disqualification and if he desires to protect his seniority rights he must comply with the provisions of Rule 12(b).'


"Fitness and ability are terms which should be read in conjunction with the provisions of Rule 8. If an employe is likely to be able to qualify for, i.e., perform competently in, a position after no more than thirty working days of on-the-job training, he or she must, therefore, be regarded as having 'sufficient' fitness and abilty to be considered for promotion to that position.
While this Hoard will not lightly overrule a Carrier's good faith determinatil as to assessing the qualifications of its employes, it is manifest in this case that there was a misapplication of the criteria set forth in the Rules.
Claimant should have been accorded the opportunity to qualify for Train Clerk Position No. 04740. Accordingly, Carrier should now assign her to that position.
As a remedy, Claimant should fairly receive eight (8) hours at the pro rata rate of Train Clerk Position No. 04740 for each work day she was held off such position _Zess the amount of compensation she actually received for those workdays.
                    Award Number 25401 Page 3

                    Locket Number CL-25444


        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, 1934;
That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and
        The Agreement was violated.


                        A W A R D


        Claim sustained in accordance with the Opinion.


                          NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                          By Order of Third Division


Attest: (,f6~I
 Nancy, , ver - Executive Secretary
        Dated at Chicago, Illinois this 15th day of April 1985.