The Organization's dispute in part states "what Carrier did in this case is deliberately conspicuous, and the selection of its choice employees for the Train Dispatcher positions was done in eager rapidity, purposed by the involved supervisors to move their friends in the Train Dispatcher program without further ado."

The Organization further asserts that the Carrier "completely ignored the principle of seniority and length of service, and focused wholly on the word `acceptable', as that word appears in Article W.A. of the CETC/CTC Agreement . . .," which reads in pertinent part:

"A. Employees who have TC NEC seniority excluding those who are selected for separation in accordance with Article I, paragraph C, will be granted preferential hiring rights to Train Dispatcher positions on the Northeast Corridor. Acceptable candidates will be selected in their TC NEC Seniority order."

A summary of the denial letter from the Division Manager, Labor Relations Metropolitan Division to the District Chairman follows. With the exception of Claimant Glab, all other Claimants were determined unacceptable candidates for the Train Dispatcher position for reasons stated below:

Claimant Gentry: " . . . his record is horrendous. Among numerous disciplinary actions) which have been formally documented, are seven (7) separate instances of suspensions and two dismissals . . . ."

Claimant Leonard: "In the case of Mr. Leonard, he was not interviewed due to the fact that he had been given two opportunities previously to qualify for this position and had been unable to do so. Mr. Leonard attended the Train Dispatchers' training class on two separate occasions and was unable to pass the exam."

Claimant Perkins: " . . . he was not afforded an interview for the Train Dispatcher position for two very valid reasons, the first being excessive absenteeism, and the second, a serious violation of NORAC Operating Rules, which resulted in a 20 day suspension and requalification."

The Board finds nothing on the record before us to contradict Carrier's assessment of disqualification in each of the above cases.

Claimant Glab, according to the aforementioned letter from the Carrier, was "considered a good candidate for promotion to Train Dispatcher." However, Carrier stated they were unable to arrange and interview or have him attend training classes due to his scheduled vacation and the short notice of the Train Dispatcher class. Carrier stated they met with Claimant Glab and "advised him that he would be given every consideration for any future openings."

In light of the foregoing, the Board finds no basis upon which to grant the Organization's claim.