This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.

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

The Organization filed the instant claim on behalf of the Claimant, alleging that the Carrier violated the parties' Agreement when it improperly and unjustly disqualified the Claimant from his position as a Ballast Regulator Operator.

The Organization contends that the claim should be sustained in its entirety because (1) the Claimant's disqualification was unjust, improper, and on the basis of unproven allegations (2) there is no evidence demonstrating the Claimant's inability to competently perform the functions required of the position in question and (3) the record demonstrates that the Carrier's disqualification of the Claimant was tardy, underhanded, and in retaliatory response to his safety-related complaints. The Carrier counters that the claim should be denied in its entirety because (1) the Claimant failed to follow instructions and demonstrated his inability to properly operate the machine (2) there was nothing arbitrary or unreasonable in the Carrier's decision to disqualify the Claimant (3) arbitral precedent affirms the Carrier's managerial right to determine an employee's qualifications for a position, and (4) the Organization failed to satisfy its burden of proof.

The Board carefully reviewed the record evidence and finds that the Organization failed to meet its burden to prove that the Carrier improperly and unjustifiably disqualified the Claimant from his Ballast Regulator Operator position.

It is fundamental that the Carrier has the right to determine the qualifications for positions and to make sure that its employees meet those qualifications. The record reveals that the Carrier had observed the Claimant attempting to work as a Ballast Regulator Operator. The Carrier observed that the Claimant was unable to properly perform the required duties. The record contains specific actions and inactions on the part of the Claimant that demonstrated to the Carrier the Claimant's inability to perform the duties of the job. The Claimant worked too close to a crane on one occasion; he said he did not perform certain functions of a job on another occasion; and when he was given instructions from a

Award No. 41585

Foreman, he disappeared from the area and did not perform the work that was required. The Board finds that the Carrier properly determined that the Claimant had failed to demonstrate the appropriate safe behavior to work on that position. The Organization failed to show with sufficient evidence that it was the Claimant's actions in raising safety concerns that led to his disqualification.

As stated above, the Carrier has the right to set job qualification standards. In this case, the Claimant failed to meet those standards and he was properly disqualified. Therefore, the claim must be denied.

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