On January 13, 1992, Claimant exercised his bumping rights under the agreement and displaced a junior employee as assistant pile driver engineer. On April 15, 1992, Carrier disqualified Claimant from that position. Claimant requested and received an unjust treatment conference in accordance wi_h Rule 49 of the agreement, after which Carrier reaffirmed Claimant's disqualification.

The Organization contends that Claimant was treated unjustly because Carrier never trained Claimant on the pile driver. The organization observes that Rule 15(C) specifies that the purpose of the position "is to work with Pile Driver Engineer and learn the operation so as to have qualified employees to fill vacancies as they may occur," and that Rule 15(D) characterizes the position as "primarily a training position." The Organization argues that Carrier had the burden to prove that Claimant received adequate training and that Carrier failed to carry that burden, particularly in light of a signed statement by Claimant that he did not receive proper training.

Carrier contends that it has the right to assess the qualifications of employees for positions and that the organization has failed to prove that Carrier's exercise of that right was arbitrary, capricious or discriminatory. Carrier argues that it disqualified Claimant because, after three months in the position, he was unable to grasp the basic instructions for operating the pile driver. Carrier maintains that its position is supported by a signed statement from the B & B Supervisor.

The decisions of this Board make it clear that, in the absence of express language placing greater restrictions or duties on the Carrier, Carrier has a right to determine the qualifications of employees, subject only to providing the employee a fair opportunity to qualify. See, e.a., Third Division Award 24045. The Organization has the burden to prove that Carrier's decision to disqualify Claimant was arbitrary, capricious or discriminatory. ,beg, e.g. Second Division Award 10526.

Our review of the record developed on the property leads us to conclude that the organization failed to prove that Carrier's decision - to disqualify Claimant was arbitrary, capricious or discriminatory. Although Claimant asserted in his statement that he did not receive adequate training, that assertion was refuted by the B & B Supervisor's statement that Claimant was "unable to get past the basic instructions" on operation of the pile driver, and that the Supervisor had discussed Claimant's performance with Claimant on two occasions.

There is no evidence that during these discussions Claimant raised any need for more intensive training than what was being provided him. Claimant's own statement corroborates Carrier's determination that Claimant could not comprehend the most basic instructions, as Claimant admitted that when asked to raise the boom, he grabbed the wrong lever.

Beyond Claimant's assertions of inadequate training, the only other evidence which might suggest that Claimant was not afforded a fair opportunity to qualify for the position was claimant's statement that, in the unjust treatment conference, the pile driver operator stated that it was not his job to instruct Claimant on the operation of the machine. The B & B Supervisor, however, denied that such a statement was made. We do not resolve such conflicts in the evidence de novo. We are bound to defer to Carrier's resolution of the conflict if that resolution is reasonable. See, e.g., Second Division Award 10526. Accordingly, we conclude that the Organization failed to prove that Claimant's disqualification was arbitrary, capricious or discriminatory.

AWARD