Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 28450
 THIRD DIVISION Docket No. MS-27882
 90-3-87-3-493
 The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Robert W. McAllister when award was rendered.

 (Betty Foley PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
"(1) Company violated the Agreement between the parties when it denied Clerk B. Foley the position of Merger Clerk, #388, advertised on bulletin No. 17, dated February 21, 1984, in violation of Rules 6,8,10 and others of the Clerks' Agreement.

 (2) Company shall now compensate Clerk B. Foley for the difference in rates between the position held and that of Merger Clerk, Central Callboard, Harvey, Illinois, un
(3) Company shall now be required to compensate Clerk B. Foley 12 months pay (261 days) at the pro rata rate of the position now being occupied by the Claimant, or at the Merger Protected Rate, whichever is greater. In February of 1984 pursuant to the 1972 Merger Agreement the company offered separation allowance of 261 days pay to the Employees in Seniority District No. 1, Northern Division, who were in the Chicago home zone. This separation allowance was given to the former incumbent on position #388 Merger Clerk Dolores Burns, seniority date of January 24, 1969 but at the same time denied to the Claimant B. Foley seniority date of August 12, 1945. Thus the company in February and March of 1984 denied Clerk B. Foley both the separation allowance she requested and
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 Award No. 28450
 Page 2 Docket No. MS-27882
 90-3-87-3-493
 The Claimant bid on the position of Merger Clerk, #388, advertised on
 Bulletin No. 17 dated February 21, 1984. The incumbent of this position is
 responsible for determining the merger guarantee payments of employees in
 train and engine service. To do this, it is necessary to determine the jobs
 worked by the employee as well as any higher paying jobs to which the employee
 could have exercised seniority. This requires an understanding of the merger
 agreement, crew calling and seniority rules and the basis of compensation of
 trainmen and engineers. The Claimant was not awarded this position and a
 junior employee was assigned. As a result of not being awarded this job, the
 Claimant was not eligible for severance payments which were made available
 only to employees in freight service.







These two Rules, when read together, permit the Carrier to assess an employee's qualifications to determine if the employee is capable of becoming qualified within thirty work days. Because of the reference to fitness and ability, Rule 6(a) is not a strict seniority rule. This Board has consistently deferred to the Carri proves that the Carrier exercised its judgment in an unreasonable, arbitrary, capricious or discriminatory manner. (See, for example, Third Division Award 20878).

 Notwithstanding the Claimant's assertion that she was denied the job in order to keep her ineligible for severance pay, the record supports the conclusion the Carrier's unlikely that she could become qualified on the job within the time allowed in Rule 10(a). Accordingly, we cannot conclude the Carrier abused its discretion in declining the Claimant's bid on this job. As the Claimant was not entitled to the job in question, the issue of severance pay becomes moot.
 Form 1 Award No. 28450
 Page 3 Docket No. MS-27882
 90-3-87-3-493




                            By Order of Third Division


Attest:~J
 Nancy J. eye r - Executive Secretary

 Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 19th day of July 1990.