Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 27337
 THIRD DIVISION Docket No. SG-26687
 88-3-85-3-500
 The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Martin F. Scheinman when award was rendered.

 (Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen PARTIES TO DISPUTE:



On behalf of C. S. Kocian for the difference between the pay of a Signalman and a District Signal Foreman, in addition to all other pay he has received, commencing on July 16, 1984 and continuing until claim is settled account of Carrier violated Appendix 'A', when it promoted a junior employee to position of District Signal Foreman. General Chairman file CNW-G-AV-47. Carrier file 79-84-17."

 FINDINGS:

 The Third Division of the Adjustment Board upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that:

 The carrier or carriers and the employe or employes involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 1934.

 This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.

At the time this dispute arose, Claimant was the Leading Signal Maintainer at Lake Interlocking position of District Foreman became available. Claimant bid for it, but the post was given to D. C. Corcoran, a junior employee.

 As a result, the organization filed the instant claim. Carrier timely rejected it. Thereafter, the dispute was handled in the usual manner on the property. It is now before this Board for adjudication.

 The organization contends that Claimant has at least equal training, ability merit and fitness as a successful bidder. In support of this contention, it points out that many years, ran the Lake Street crew for eighteen months and has engaged in other tasks which amply qualify him for the job. Under these circumstances, the organization submits, Claimant's seniority requires that he be awarded the position, pursuant to Rule 9 of the Agreement. Therefore, it asks that the claim be sustained in its entirety.
 Form 1 Award No. 27337
 Page 2 Docket No. SG-26687
 88-3-85-3-500

 Carrier, on the other hand, argues that it is free to select the best qualified candidate. In its view D. C. Corcoran was better qualified than Claimant, since he understood circuitry better than Claimant and could read blue prints better than Claimant. Thus, Carrier asserts it properly rejected Claimant's bid. Therefore, it asks the claim be denied.

 A review of the record evidence convinces this Board that the claim must fail. Appendix A, Paragraph 9 permits the "appointment from the signalmen's class of the indivi added.) Clearly, Carrier made reasonable judgment that D. C. Corcoran was better qualified than Claimant. It determined that Claimant was less able to read blue prints or understand circuitry than the successful bidder. Clearly, these are relevant considerations for the position in dispute. Thus, Carrier was neither arbitrary nor capricious in determining that D. C. Corcoran should be awarded the post.




                          By Order of Third Division


                    01


Attest:
          cy . D Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 30th day of August 1988.