prerequisite skills testing information in either her PACs or personnel history file, albeit she was the senior bidder. The Carrier asserts that it therefore properly awarded the position to an employee junior in seniority to the Claimant who had a PACs history showing a passing score on the P&M Oracle Test as having- been attained on June 1, 2004.

In its argument involving the claim, the Organization alleged that the Carrier qualified the Claimant on Oracle in December 1999, and that she continued to use it in her present position without complaint. This assertion is disputed by the Carrier. It submits that the Claimant's work history does not show her having become so qualified or having held a position that required knowledge of P&M Oracle functions.

The Organization also asserts in argument on the claim that it is the Carrier's responsibility to make and maintain note of all pertinent information in an employee's PACs or personal history file as the keeper of records, not that of an employee to make sure their job history has all appropriate test scores.

Contrary to the Organization's argument, the Board finds the record to support a finding that the Carrier's Prerequisite Skills Testing Policy was administered in a fair and reasonable manner and that it was not an abuse of its managerial rights or a violation of any cited Agreement Rules for the Carrier to require an employee to be responsible for ensuring that test results or prerequisite requirements are duly noted in their PACs or work history as on file with the Carrier.

The Board also finds no violation of Agreement Rule 9, "Time in Which to Qualify," as alleged by the Organization. We do not find evidentiary support in the record for the contention that even assuming, ar2uendo, the Claimant did not exhibit prerequisite skills in bidding the position, that she should have been awarded the position and allowed 30 days in which to qualify pursuant to provisions of Rule 9 that read in part as follows:

"An employee awarded a bulletined position will be allowed thirty (30) days in which to qualify and failing to qualify shall within seven (7) calendar days return to his former position or forfeit all seniority."

Agreement language such as that cited above has many times been held by the Board as not requiring an employee be given a trial period or chance to demonstrate fitness and ability over a 30 day period of time when a Carrier has determined the employee does not possess the qualifications, fitness and ability to perform the job functions of a position. The 30 day period has generally been recognized as time for an employee with sufficient fitness and ability who has been awarded a position to demonstrate a capacity to fulfill the job functions of the position.

The Board is aware of the importance that seniority provisions of an agreement have in the exercise of certain rights in the employment relationship. However, it must be recognized that the parties are in agreement that seniority alone is not the sole factor in determining an employee's fitness and ability to be awarded a bulletined position, and that a junior employee with sufficient fitness and ability has a seniority right of consideration for a bulletined position over a senior employee who does not.

It has long been recognized in numerous decisions of the Board that the Carrier alone has the right to establish and maintain reasonable standards of job qualification and to judge the fitness and ability of an employee to be awarded a position so long as it does not abuse its authority in making such determinations. It has also been held that a Carrier has the right to require employees to demonstrate their aptitude and qualifications for a position by passing a qualifying test before bidding or being placed on a position. See, for example, Third Division Award 396 (March 2, 1937) wherein it was held:

"The seniority rules of collective agreements are designed to safeguard fundamental rights of the employes, and it is important that these rules be observed carefully and in good faith. It is also important, however, that the carrier be not deprived of such discretion in choice of personnel as is reserved to the management by these very rules.

[While] seniority is thus to be given controlling recognition where the necessary qualifications are present, it is clear that the right of seniority is not established as an absolute right - that faithful discharge of duties, capacity for increased responsibility, and sufficiency of ability are also relevant considerations. * * * This does

"The agreement does not specifically provide for written tests to determine qualifications, and neither does it specifically prohibit such tests. To determine whether or not an employee is qualified is usually a matter of judgment by management. Management may use any number of methods to aid it in forming a judgment, and so long as the methods used are fair and reasonable, and administered without discrimination, we cannot substitute our judgment for that of management. We find in this case that management did not exercise its judgment in an arbitrary or discriminatory manner."

In making this decision the Board also finds it significant that nothing of record

shows the prerequisite qualifications as advertised to have been established by the Carrier for other than valid reasons and sufficiently related to the duties of the Section Storekeeper position. Study of the record also persuades the Board that the Claimant had full opportunity under the Prerequisite Skills Testing Policy to become and show that she was fully qualified for the position. Apparently, as a matter of personal choice, the Claimant did not do so, whereas the junior employee awarded the position did so in keeping with the Prerequisite Skills Testing Policy.

It is evident that although the Claimant was the most senior applicant for the

Section Storekeeper position at issue, she did not at the time possess the required qualifications and fitness as set forth in the job bulletin to be awarded the position. Consequently, the claim to set aside the Carrier's decision and compensate the Claimant for an alleged violation of the Agreement is denied.

AWARD