Both Parties raised objections to new argument presented to the Board in the other's Submission. No arguments so offered have been considered by the Board in its determination.

At issue in this case is the Carrier's application of Rule 3 ("Selection of Positions") - Section 1, of the Agreement between the Parties. That Section reads in pertinent part:

"Section 1 Assignment to Position

in the assignment of employees to positions under the Agreement, qualification being sufficient, seniority shall govern."

In April 1990, Carrier bulletined an Assistant Foreman position. Both Claimant and another employee, junior to Claimant submitted bids for the position. Carrier awarded the position to the junior employee on the basis of his computer competency. The organization filed a claim, in which it protested that the position should have been awarded to the senior employee.

A careful review of the record before the Board does not support the Organization's contention. According to the language of Rule 3, Section 1, Carrier considered the sufficiency of an applicant's qualification before considering his/her seniority in awarding positions. The organization has argued that 1) the Carrier has not proven Claimant did not have sufficient qualifications, and 2) that it never gave Claimant the opportunity to qualify in the Assistant Foreman position.

It has long been held on this and other Boards that, in the absence of persuasive evidence to the contrary, the Board will not "second guess" Carrier's good faith determination of an employee's qualification for a position. Further, under the terms of Rule 3, Carrier is not obliged to give a senior employee who lacks "sufficient qualification" the opportunity to qualify for a position through a "trial period."

AWARD