Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 27628
 THIRD DIVISION Docket No. MW-26738
 88-3-85-3-610
 The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Marty E. Zusman when award was rendered.

 (Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:

 (1) The Agreement was violated when the position of Track Welder Helper on Gang 1917 as advertised by Bulletin #71b dated August 7, 1984 was awarded to an applicant junior to Sectionman G. L. Kruger (System File M-53/013-210-19).



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.

The record shows that Carrier assigned the Welder Helper position to a junior employee, rather than to Claimant. By letter of August 14, 1984, the Organization protested Carrier's decision as a violation of the Agreement whereby seniority prevails when ability and qualifications are sufficient.

 The Organization stresses that the Claimant had sufficient ability and qualifications and was the senior employee by twenty-two (22) months. It focuses upon Rule 19(a) which states that:
Form 1 Award No. 27628
 Page 2 Docket No. MV- 26738
 88-3-85-3-610

 The organization notes that the junior employee promoted had more experience due to Rule 20(a) Option 3 which utilized employees for relief Welder Helper assignments who were "either working in the gang or at the location nearest where the vacancy occur(red)." It also argues that Claimant had a capacity for greater responsibility.

 The Carrier asserts that the junior employee worked eighteen weeks as a Welder Helper, while the Claimant worked only two weeks in that capacity. It further notes that the Welding Supervisor recommended the junior employee in accordance with Rule 19. It stated by letter of October 24, 1984, that the junior employee "was the most qualified applicant in accordance with railroad standards." By letter of January 28, 1985, Carrier elaborated to state that Claimant "did not retain sufficient fitness and ability to assume the position of Welder Helper." It is the Carrier's position that the controlling Rule is Rule 19(b) which states in pertinent part:



Carrier maintains that the Welding Supervisor's decision was that the Claimant did not possess sufficient qualifications and ability for the position as well as "ambition Award Number 15 which held in part that:

For many years this Board has found that "fitness and ability" determinations rest with the Carrier. Once the Carrier has found the employee's fitness and ability show by probative evidence that Carrier's decision is arbitrary, capricious, biased, or defective.

 The organization has the burden of proof in the instant case. It argues that the Claimant was used by the Carrier for two weeks in the relief position of Welder Helper, aided a fellow Track Welder on numerous occasions and received instruction throughout his life on welding from his father who was a welder by occupation. Under the Agreement requiring sufficient ability
 Form 1 Award No. 27628
 Page 3 Docket No. MW-26738
 88-3-85-3-610

 and qualifications the Claimant's previous work for two weeks in the position provides this Board with a prima facie case. The burden therefore shifts to the Carrier to go forward with rebuttal evidence or proving affirmative defenses, if it has any.

 Our review of the record on property finds no evidence whatsoever that Claimant lacked sufficient ability and qualifications. Carrier provides no evidence that Claimant had a poor work record, failed to perform adequately when he held the relief position or other factual grounds to support its determination. Importantly, never observed by any Welding Supervisor to assess his qualifications while he occupied the Helper position was unrefuted and stands as fact. Mr. McCord's letter of September 24, 1984, was not clearly in the on-property record and was not considered by this Board.

 In the facts and circumstances herein, the Board holds for the Organization. Claimant had held t evidence that the extra time held by the junior employee was the result of other than contractual circumstances. Further, unlike S.B.A. 313, Award Number 15 and other past Awards on property (e.g., Third Division Award 23219), there is no evidence of record that Claimant lacked the welding skills necessary to successfully assume the position or that a past work record suggested that Claimant's q we find any evidence in the record that Carrier's decision was based on other than "best" qualified, which is not per Agreement language.

 This Board also takes careful note that Rule 19(b) applies to foremen and supervisors and is applicable herein only to complement Rule 19(a) with regard to seniority bidding. In this record the Carrier provided _no evidence to challenge Claimant's qualifications for the position or support its conclusion. S.B.A. 313, Award conclusion by management... that one employee has greater ability than other may not always suffice..." Consequently, the Claim must be sustained as argued on property from Augu





                          By Order of Third Division


Attest:
        ancy J. Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 23rd day of November 1988.