Claimant Presutti, although without question the more senior employee on the roster as a Class 11 Machine Operator, was not permitted by the Carrier to displace Machine Operator O'Donnell on a front end loader position because the position, as previously advertised, required the occupant to possess a driver's license and the Claimant did not possess the requisite license.

The Organization maintains that the Claimant was entitled to exercise his seniority and displace a junior employee in accordance with Section 2 of Rule 4 when his position as a Class II Machine Operator (Tie Handler) was abolished on November 9, 1994. It also argues that the Carrier imposed requirement that this particular position of front end loader requires a valid driver's license is misplaced or of no force and effect in a contention that similar positions are filled with employees who do not possess a valid driver's license.

Contrary to the Organization argument, the Carrier maintains that the driver license requirement is necessary because the machine often leaves the work site and is driven on a public highway. In this respect, the Carrier submits that the machine was tagged (licensed and registered) so as to permit it to be driven over the highway, and that the machine in question regularly operates between Conway Yard and the stone pit in New Brighton, Pennsylvania, over public roads.

With respect to the Organization's argument that the Claimant holds a vehicular State of Ohio license, and that Ohio does not require a driver's license to operate a front end loader, it is noteworthy that the Carrier made the unrefuted statement during appeal of the claim on the property that the over public road operation of the machine is in the State of Pennsylvania, or, principally, a state that requires the operator of the front end loader to be licensed. Thus, the fact that the State of Ohio does not require a license to operate a machine such as a front end loader must be viewed as having no bearing on the dispute here at issue.

In regard to further Organization argument that the Carrier has allowed other employees to operate front end loaders without a driver's license, the record is devoid of evidentiary support for such a contention. Moreover, the record shows that during handling of the claim on the property that in a letter of January 31,1995 to the local vice chairperson that the Carrier requested that it be given a list of other employees currently working who did not possess the proper license requirements so that it could

investigate the allegation. The Organization is not shown to have thereafter provided the requested listing.

Because the Board finds nothing of record to show that the Carrier actions were arbitrary, capricious or discriminatory in either initially prescribing that the applicant for the position in question possess a currently valid driver's license or in determining that the Claimant did not meet such a qualification, we have no alternative but to deny the claim for a lack of merit or agreement support of record.

AWARD