Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 28453
 THIRD DIVISION Docket No. SG-28221
 90-3-88-3-4
 The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Robert W. McAllister when award was rendered.

 (Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim on behalf of the General Committee of the
 Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen on the Long Island

On behalf of C. Curto for seniority and assignment as an Assistant Foreman, beginning on or about June 19, 1986, account of Carrier violated the current Signalmen's Agreement, as amended, particularly Rule 24, when it awarded the position advertised as position No. 117, Assistant Foremen, Communications Gang No. 51,
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.

 Parties to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing thereon.

 The Claimant, a mechanic, applied for an Assistant Foreman position on a Communications Gang. The Carrier tested the Claimant to determine his qualifications for this position, but it was assigned to a junior employee. The reason given by the Carrier for not selecting the Claimant was that it took him too long to complete the test. According to the Carrier, this reflected upon his technical take time off to arrange for a funeral. It is undisputed the Claimant took fourteen hours and ten minutes over a period of five days to complete the assignments which comprise one-half hours.
 Form 1 Award No. 28453
 Page 2 Docket No. SG-28221
 90-3-88-3-4
 Rule 24 governing the qualification for Foreman positions reads as
 follows:
 "Employees covered by this Agreement who possess the
 necessary qualifications to plan, direct, lead, regu
 late and coordinate the work of other employees will
 be given consideration for promotion to positions in
 the foreman class. When two or more employees do
 possess the necessary qualifications (referred to in
 the preceding sentence of this paragraph) the senior
 employee in the successive lower classes - specified
 in paragraph (c) of Rule 11 - shall be selected for
 promotion in the foreman class."

 Under this Rule, the Carrier may determine the means by which it assesses an employee's qualific necessary to complete certain tasks may be important under some circumstances, and the Carrier may set such time standards where relevant. It may not, however, make the testing in do the work. The Rule requires that the senior of all qualified employees be selected for promotion. The Carrier cannot bypass seniority to select the best qualified applicant.

 In this case, it does not appear that the Carrier had established any time limits for completing the test. In fact, the Organization asserts the Claimant was told by the Assistant Supervisor of Communications that time would not be a factor. This assertion has not been refuted by the Carrier. The Claimant had a right to rely upon this advice, and the Carrier is not privileged to change the r
The record shows the Claimant performed satisfactorily on all parts of the test, except for the time it took him to complete it. We find, therefore, that the addition o and unreasonable. But for that requirement, the Claimant would have been the senior qualified applicant. He should have been appointed to the job and is entitled to the seniority and compensation as if he had been.




                            By Order of Third Division


Attest:
        Nancy J. -Executive Secretary


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