Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 28433
 THIRD DIVISION Docket No. SG-27858
 90-3-87-3-596
 The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Mary H. Kearney when award was rendered.

 (Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen
 PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
 (The Long Island Rail Road Company





1) That the Carrier violated the Controlling Agreement effective between the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen Local 56 and the Long Island Railroad Company, in particular, but not limited thereto, Rule 11(d), Rule 47, Rule 29, Rule 56(d), and Rule 79, when it terminated Assistant Signalman G. W. Volk, IBM N0. 24929 from the Assistant Signalman's Training Program by letter dated April 18, 1986, received April 21, 1986 alleging that he was guilty of 'failing to show sufficient aptitude to learn.'

 2) That Assistant Signalman, G. W. Volk be immediately reinstated to the Assistant Signalman's Training Program and that he be compensated for all wage losses incurred, seniority properly restored, and otherwise made whole for any and all benefit losses he may have suffered as a result of Carrier's violation of the Agreement. Carrier file SG-11-86 Volk"

 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.
Form 1 Page 2

 Award No. 28433
 Docket No. SG-27858
 90-3-87-3-596

 Claimant was hired as a Signalman Helper on June 23, 1982, and was awarded the position of Assistant Signalman on October 13, 1982, which was the beginning of the training he needed to qualify as a Mechanic under Rule 29 of the Agreement. On April 18, 1986, Carrier informed Claimant that based on results of verbal evaluations on October 15, 1985, and April 15, 1986, Carrier was invoking the provisions of Rule 29 a(1) which provides in part:

 "An Assistant Signalman failing to show sufficient aptitude to learn will be returned to the position of Signal Helper, retaining his seniority rights only as Helper."

 Claimant was advised that effective April 25, 1986, he was removed from the Assistant Signalman Training Program and was to exercise his rights according to Rule 29 a(1). Claimant was subsequently furloughed from service since he did not have sufficient seniority as a Signal Helper to hold that position.

 Carrier maintains that its actions were in accordance with Special Rule 29 but the Organization contends that Carrier violated Rule 47 when it dismissed Claimant without granting him an investigation. Rule 47 provides in relevant part:

 "Employees who have completed their probationary period shall not be disciplined or dismissed without a fair and impartial trial

 The facts established below clearly show that Claimant was not being "dismissed or disciplined" when Carrier removed him from the Assistant Signalman Training Program. C because Carrier had determined based on tests that he could not satisfactorily complete this program. No disciplinary motive was shown to underlie this action.

 Moreover, Claimant was not dismissed. Once returned to the Signal Helper position, Claimant did not have enough seniority to maintain that position, i.e., all others on the job were more senior than he and he could not, therefore, rightfully bump them, and there were otherwise no vacant positions. Had Claimant held sufficient seniority as a Signal Helper he would have remained employed and would not have been furloughed.

 The Organization further argues that the Agreement contains no provision for Carrier to conduct indicated in Appendix A: Training Program Signal Maintainer Administrative Procedures, also referred to herein as the Training Agreement, which clearly states that all tests will be written. Specifically, Section VII of the Training Agreement partially provides:
 Form 1 Award No. 28433
 Page 3 Docket No. SG-27858
 90-3-87-3-596

Section XII states:


Since Carrier removed Claimant from the Training Program based on the results of verbal evaluations, the Organization contends that Carrier violated the Training Agreement.

 A close scrutiny of all correspondence exchanged by the parties demonstrates that this contention was not advanced implicitly or explicitly while this Claim was being handled on the property. Circular No. 1 issued by the National Railroad Adjustment Board established the procedure that:

The Board has consistently upheld this requirement and will do so herein. Without requiring strict adherence to this procedure the Carrier would be placed in the inequitable position of having to counter a contention, that has potential to dispose of the dispute, without being afforded the opportunity to effectively respond.

 The Board will next consider whether Carrier erred when it determined Claimant did not possess sufficient aptitude to learn and removed him pursuant to Rule 29. Claimant was in his eighth and final training period when this action occurred. Carrier based its decision on the results of two verbal evaluations of Claimant whi
It is generally held that once the Carrier makes a determination as to an employee's fitness and ability to perform a job the employee is seeking, the burden then shifts to the Employees to establish that the individual has in fact the required ability to perform the job. Third Division Award 25681.

 To this end, the Organization asserts that prior to October 15, 1985, Claimant passed six verbal evaluations and eleven written evaluations thus demonstrating his aptitude to learn. Further, the organization presented proof that at the time of the dispute, Claimant had successfully completed 28 courses at the Technical Career Institute toward an Association Degree in Occupational Studies, Electronic Circuits and Systems.
 Form 1 Award No. 28433
 Page 4 Docket No. SG-27858
 90-3-87-3-596

 The record shows, however, that although Claimant passed the previous verbal evaluations, he could not, in two attempts, pass the next one. The Carrier has maintained throughout this Claim that although Claimant has aptitude for the written por procedures he would follow in a given situation. The evidence presented by the Organization primarily demonstrates Claimant's classroom prowess and does not overcome the Carrier's position that Claimant's practical application of this knowledge is deficient.

 Concerning the validity of the testing process, the record shows that on October 15, 1985, Claimant was evaluated in his response to a variety of questions relative to the operation of switches and relays and the demand that he name the parts of the T-20 Switch was only a portion of the evaluation. A Supervisor advised Claimant on that day that his performance during the test was poor.

 During the evaluation of April 15, 1986, Claimant was again asked a mix of relevant questions. Claimant's Supervisor advised him by letter three days later that he had shown no improvement over the previous evaluation.

 Although Claimant was evaluated twice in succession on mostly the same subject matter he was unable to provide answers that Management deemed satisfactory. Under the procedures of the Training Program an employee must successfully pass each stage before he qualifies for promotion to the Mechanic's class. Claimant was two attempts could not get past the seventh. The record demonstrates that the evaluations were balanced and that although given the opportunity to improve to a satisfactory level Claimant failed to do so.

 Finally the Board must decide if Carrier wrongfully removed Claimant from the Training Program without first granting him the opportunity to practically demonstrate his


The Board finds that nothing in the record rebuts the Carrier's claim that its actions taken herein were in accordance with this Rule and with an established practice. Also, the Board notes that the language of Rule 56(d) is discretionary. It does not mandate that in every instance of reasonable doubt a practical demonstration of an employee's ability must occur. The Board does not, therefore, overrule the Carrier on the basis of its application of Rule 56(d).
 Form 1 Award No. 28433
 Page 5 Docket No. SG-27858
 90-3-87-3-596

        Claim denied.


                          NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                          By Order of Third Division


Attest:
      Nancy J. r - Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 21st day of June 1990.