Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 29307
 THIRD DIVISION Docket No. MW-28217
 92-3-87-3-776
 The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Elliott H. Goldstein 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 Machine Operator M. E. Lain, Jr. was disqualified as the operator of Plaser PUM Tamper ATS-23 on November 22, 1985 (Carrier's File 247-7250).

 (2) As a consequence of the aforesaid violation, Mr. M. E. Lain, Jr. shall:

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 instant dispute centers on the disqualification of the Claimant from operating a Plasser PUM Tamping Machine. The Claimant retains a seniority date of June 22, 1973 Form 1 Award No. 29307
 Page 2 Docket No. MW-28217
 92-3-87-3-776

 According to the information exchanged by the parties during the handling of this dispute on the property, Claimant was qualified on the Plasser PUM Tamper on Nay 30, 1985. Prior to issuing a certification of Claimant's qualification, the Supervisor required the Claimant to execute the following statement:





On November 5, 1985, Claimant complained to the Supervisor that the machine would not cross level properly. The same problems were experienced by the Claimant for the next two days. Each day, the Supervisor checked the calibration on the cross level of the machine and found nothing wrong. Each day, the record shows, he demonstrated to Claimant the proper way to operate the machine. On November 21, 1985, Claimant reported that he was having problems with the cross level again. This time, a Mechanic and a Roadmaster examined the machine and found that it was in proper working order. Claimant was disqualified on the machine the following day.

 The Organization contends, first, that in accordance with Rule 10 of the current Agreement, "employes accepting promotion and failing to qualify within thirty (30) days, may return to their former position without loss of seniority." According to the Organization, the Rule clearly provides an employee a thirty day period fitness, ability and capacity to learn the job. If Claimant were not qualified to operate the ?lasse within the 30-day period under Rule 10. As the record stands, the Organization argues that Claimant to the organization that the disqualification was arbitrary and capricious and without evidentiary support.

 Second, the Organization contends that Claimant was entitled to a Hearing under Rule 12. It notes that Claimant requested a Hearing and that Carrier's failure to so provide denied Claimant his Agreement rights of due process. In the Organization's view, Claimant's right to the Hearing was triggered by the disqualification, an action which the Organization deems to be disciplinary in nature.
 Form 1 Award No. 29307
 Page 3 Docket No. MW-28217
 92-3-87-3-776

 Carrier's position is that it disqualified Claimant for justifiable reasons and that its actions did not constitute discipline within the purview of Rule 12. Carrier further notes that Claimant understood the fact that his qualification was conditioned upon his continued good work performance, as demonstrated by his signed May 30, 1985 statement. He should not now be heard to complain, the Carrier argues, given his continued inability to operate the machine properly.

 After careful review of the record in its entirety, we are convinced that the instant claiz: is without merit and must be denied. Although the Organization asserts :hat Claimant was disqualified "for no apparent reason" and in apparent contradiction to the opinion of several employees who submitted letters on the Claim repeated occasions wnere Claimant demonstrated that he lacked the necessary degree of fitness and ability to safely and competently operate this piece of equipment. The fact :hat Claimant may have previously been deemed qualified is not controlling. .izy employee, despite having previously been qualified on a certain piece of ecuipment, may, for whatever reason, fail to maintain the necessary degree of __tness to continue in that capacity. We do not read Rule 10 as a limitation on Carrier's right to disqualify an individual at any time where there is evidence of incapacity or inability to competently perform the duties of his or her assignment.

 Moreover, ·:e reject the Organization's contention that the action taken against the Claimant was tantamount to discipline thereby warranting the invocation of the investigation and hearing procedures of the Agreement. The vast majority of Awarns considering this issue have differentiated facts such as those herein from facts constituting discipline. Third Division Awards 11975, 14596, 20045; Second Division Award 11064.

 In sum, the record establishes a reasonable basis for Claimant's disqualification and, accordingly, the claim must be denied.

        Claim denied.


                          NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                          By Order of Third Division


Attest:
        ncy J. DExecutive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 24th day of July 1992.