Form 1 'I-ATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 29347
 THIRD DIVISION Docket No. CL-29068
 92-3-89-3-506
 The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Irwin M. Lieberman when award was rendered.
 Transportation Communications International Union
 PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
 Bessemer and Lake Erie Railroad Company

 STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim of the System Committee of the Organization


1. Carrier violated the effective agreement when it failed to assign Clerk A. M. Tomko to the temporary vacancy on the position of Head Duplicating ~achine Operator, a"ective March 14, 1988.

 2. Carrier shall now compensate Ms. Tomko for the difference between the rate of her posirion of Senior Office Machine Operator and that of Head Duplicating Machine )perator for March 14, 1988, and for each and every day thereafter that a like violation occurs.

 FINDINGS:
The Third :vision 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.

In this dispute the Organization relies, in large part on the provisions of Rules 28 and 35, whi








Form 1 Award No. 29347
 Page 2 Docket No. CL-29068
 92-3-89-3-506
 (b). Employes covered by this agreement shall be in
 line for promotion. Promotions, assignments and
 displacements shall be based on seniority, fitness
 and ability; fitness and ability being sufficient,
 senioritv shall prevail."

                      FAILURE TO QUALIFY


          (a). =ployees entitled to advertised positions or

          those exercising displacement rights shall be allowed

          thirty (?0) working days, with full opportunity, in

          which tc qualify, and failing, shall retain all their

          seniorit-: rights, may bid on any advertised posi

          tions, ~ut shall not displace any regularly assigned

          employee.


          Employees will be given reasonable cooperation in their e__orts to qualify.


          (b). w.nen it is definitely determined that employees

          are not ;ualified for positions they may be removed

          before expiration of the thirty (30) day time limit,

          providea the local chairman is given reasons there

          fore in writing.


At the time of this dispute, Claimant was the Senior Office Machine Operator in a small office. The Head Duplicating Machine Operator became i11 and was off for approximately three months. Carrier bulletined the position, for which Claimant applied, and Carrier determined that no applications were received from qualified employees and the position was not filled. The job description of the --ulletined job is as follows:

          "Operate all offset duplicating machines, camera and plate maKing equipment, and all other equipment in duplicating area. Must have extensive knowledge both in theory and practice in the operation of all offset duplicating equipment and ITEK, or similar type, plate making camera and peripheral equipment. Will operate various bindery equipment, folders, paper cutter, drills, binders, stapling machines, Varityper Model 1010 and operate Xerox 9400 or similar equipment. '!isc. clerical duties as assigned." (Employ

Form 1 Award No. 29347
 Page 3 Docket No. CL-29068
 92-3-89-3-506

 In essence, the Organization argues that Claimant had an excellent record and worked in close proximity to the incumbent of the position in question. It is urged that she should have been given the thirty day period to qualify as provided in Rule 35.

 Carrier asserts that the position in question required extensive technical training, such as a full printing course or comparable experience. Carrier states that Claimant had neither. Further Carrier argues that it has never assigned employees to positions for a thirty day period to qualify when they did not have the requisite skills to fulfill the basic job requirements.

 In fitness and ability disputes, it is essential that the Organization presents prima :acie evid to perform in the position. Here no such evidence is present. Further, there is no evidence that -arrier acted improperly or in violation of any Rules in making the determination that Claimant was not qualified. The Organization has failed to meet its burden oz proof in this matter and the claim must be denied.

                        .A W A R D


        Claim denied.


                          NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                          By Order of Third Division


Attest: ~Z -

        'ancy J. :,e Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 25th day of August 1992.