Parties to said dispute were given due notice of hearing thereon.

This is a seniority dispute in which the Claimant was the senior applicant for bulletined position and the job was awarded to a junior employee. The dispute revolves around the requirement of possessing a Certified Driver's License (CDL). Undisputed facts include that the Claimant was the senior applicant for Bulletin No. SO-488, a position of Assistant Section Foreman stipulating that applicants have a CDL; that the Claimant took a physical examination necessary to acquire a CDL; that he had not obtained the CDL; and that the position was awarded to a junior employee who had a valid CDL.

The Organization argues that the requirements were arbitrarily changed without notification to include the CDL. The Claimant had held the exact same position on a

Carrier argues throughout that its assignment in this instance was not discriminatory and further by disputed letter dated March 30, 1995 that it engaged in equal treatment.

Clearly, this Board has always held that if the Organization can demonstrate that the CDL is not related to the bulletined job, but required by the Carrier for some arbitrary or unnecessary reason, Carrier's disqualification can't hold (Third Division Awards 29851, 29218). This is the finding of recent Third Division Award 32876. Here, the Carrier maintained that it was a requirement, it was clearly bulletined as necessary for qualifications and that the position was awarded to a qualified junior applicant who held a CDL. Nowhere does this Board find any argument by the Organization that the CDL was unnecessary. The sole issue left before this Board is equal treatment.

The Board has seriously studied the dates and circumstances related to the Carrier's March 30,1995 letter which asserts equal treatment. There is a considerable record of an attempt to properly exchange information on property related to this dispute, including the Carrier's attempts to fax this same letter without success. In fact, after the claim was conferenced on October 21, 1994, both sides apparently agreed to add facts to the record. The Organization did so by letter of January 23, 1995 and thereafter challenged the Carrier to "produce documentation.." refuting its position. It did not indicate that failing to receive same or reply by known date, it would forward to the Board for handling. It subsequently filed the dispute on March 30,1995; the same date as the disputed letter from the Carrier and a day before the National Railroad Adjustment Board acknowledged receipt of the dispute. This is clearly not the type of action envisioned by the Railway Labor Act which requires this Board to ignore evidence not handled on the property and bars all such evidence by Circular No. 1. Nor can acceptance of a letter which by technicality falls inside the time limit permit full consideration when it comes too late for rebuttal.

On the whole of this case, the Board finds that the elements essential to prove violation by the Carrier are not sufficiently present. We are persuaded by this record that the CDL was properly bulletined because it was necessary and related to the performance of the Assistant Foreman's position. We find the proof of disparate, discriminatory treatment insufficient. The claim is denied.