PARTIES Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees
 and
 DILUTE Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company
 STATEMENT "1. That the Carrier violated the provisions of the
 CL IM current agreement when it failed to restore former
 Section Foreman, Mr. F. D. Clevenger's Section
 Foreman's seniority rights within a reasonable period
 of time.
 2. That Mr. F. D. Clevenger's seniority rights as a
 Section Foreman be restored with all restrictions re
 moved and that he be compensated the difference in pay
 for the intervening period."

 FINDINGS
Upon the whole record, after hearing, the Board finds that the parties herein are Carrier and Employees within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as amended, and that this Board is duly constituted under Public Law 89-456 and has jurisdiction of the parties and the subject matter.

 Following an investigation, in December of 1980 Mr. Clevenger had been removed from service. for allegedly misappropriating Carrier-owned gasoline for his own use in his own car. Subsequently, after being out of work for some 18 months, an agreement was reached to restore Mr. Clevenger to service on a leniency basis without pay for time lost, with a restriction that he could only work as a track- - man until he could prove to the Carrier's satisfaction that he was worthy of the lifting of the restriction. Due to an extended illness, claimant was unable to accede to the settlement arrangement until September of 1982. In June of 1983 the Organization addressed a letter to Carrier asking for consideration to removal of the restrictions on claimant's reinstatement as a Section Foreman. Carrier responded, indicating that claimant had not demonstrated his desire or capability of faithfully and productively supervising employees and, therefore, denied the request. This exchange prompted the claim herein.
                                      Award & Case No. 135


                            _2-


In essence, Carrier's position in this matter is that claimant has not demonstrated to its satisfaction that he is capable of performing the duties of Section Foreman. Since he had been returned to work on a leniency basis, Carrier maintains that he must demonstrate that he merits consideration for lifting of the restriction. Petitioner, on the other hand, indicates that there is nothing in the record to demonstrate in the earlier disciplinary action that claimant did not possess the necessary qualifications to successfully fill the position of Section Foreman. Furthermore, according to the Organization, nowhere at any time has Carrier ever indicated precisely what was expected of claimant in order to have the restriction removed.

 It is apparent that Carrier's judgment with respect to the demonstration by claimant of his ability to fill a Foreman's position was a highly subjective one. There is no indication of what deficiencies other than the alleged dishonest act existed prior to the original discipline, and no indication of what would be expected of claimant in order to qualify him at least for consideration of restoration to a Section Foreman's job. Claimant has put forth certain efforts, which are beyond those of a Trackman but, to date, those efforts have gone unrecognized. It is this Board's view that claimant, under the circumstances and terms of the leniency understanding, is entitled to some demonstration of his ability to fill the Foreman's position. For that reason, the Board shall order that claimant be put back on the job of Section Foreman to demonstrate his ability and attitude with respect-to that position for a sixty-day period. At the end of that time, Carrier may judge as to whether or not he has, indeed, demonstrated his ability to once again fill the Section Foreman's job. In this fashion, the vagueness of Carrier's requirements concerning the restriction will have been dealt with in a practical sense.

 AWARD
              Claim sustained in part in accordance with the findings above.


ORDER
                Carrier will comply with the award herein within thirty (30) days from the date hereof.

. M. Lieberman, Neutral-Chairman

 n, Ca rier ember

 Chicago, Illinois

 April 3p, 1985

 PLB No. 2774
 Award & Case No. 135

 C. F. Foose, Employee Member