Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
 THIRD DIVISION
 Award No. 38095
 Docket No. SG-37571
 07-3-02-3-645

 The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee Elizabeth C. Wesman when award was rendered.

 (Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

STATEMENT OF CLAIM:



FINDINGS:

 The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that:

 The carrier or carriers and the employee or employees involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employee within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934.

 This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.
 Form 1 Award No. 38095
 Page 2 Docket No. SG-37571



As is noted in the above claim, this matter arose when the Claimant bid into a Signal Shop Technician's position that had been advertised in Bulletin No. BLTN1701. The Carrier awarded another employee the position. On September 13, 2001, the Organization filed a claim on the Claimant's behalf in which it alleged that the Carrier had erroneously assigned another employee in place of the Claimant. In particular, the Organization maintained that the Carrier had violated Rule 38 of the Agreement, as well as the parties' "Training Agreement," at Sections 5(a) and (b) of Appendix S to that Agreement.


The Carrier denied the claim on November 1, 2001. In that letter it noted that Appendix S, Section 5 (a) provides that:




The Carrier stated that while it had considered the Claimant, it found his lack of sufficient training to preclude him from appointment to the position.


In its appeal, the Organization conceded that the Claimant needed additional training, but argued that the Carrier had no way of judging what his actual abilities were with respect to the position at issue until it gave him the opportunity to qualify for the position. In its denial of that appeal the Carrier reiterated that it had, in fact, considered the Claimant for the position at issue, but had determined that his fitness and ability were not sufficient to justify his placement therein.


It is clear from the language of Appendix S, Section 5(a) of the Training Agreement that the Carrier retains considerable latitude - within the restrictions elsewhere in the parties' Agreement - in selecting Assistant Signalmen to fill Class I positions. The Carrier's rights in this regard are not without limits (see, for example Third Division Award 34147). It must treat candidates fairly in assessing fitness and ability; such determination may not be arbitrary or discriminatory. In

Form 1 Award No. 38095
 Page 3 Docket No. SG-37571

the matter presently before the Board there is no indication in the record that the Carrier's determination was not made in good faith. As noted in Third Division Award 34175 - involving these same parties - in the absence of a showing of malfeasance, the Board has been historically reluctant to superimpose its own judgment regarding employee fitness and ability for that of the Carrier.


                        AWARD


      Claim denied.


                        ORDER


This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that an Award favorable to the Claimant(s) not be made.


                      NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                      By Order of Third Division


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 21st day of February 2007.