Fi,H f l>'=S Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes -
 Tr.~ and - ._
 VISF'OYEE the Ortchisonf Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company -
 a'1(11Lt-If=tll "1. that the Carrier violated and continues to violate _
 (1FCL,,II_tii the provisions of the current Agreement when it
 refuses to reinstate Trackman C. F. Burkhart's =






FIt7DTt,IIGS

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


parties and the subject matter. -

Tire record indicates that- Claimant had been terminated on March 21, 1.984 for reason of accumulation of excessive demerits. Subsequently, on June 2t?, .1984, he was afforded and accepted a leniency reinstatement with seniority rights unimpaired, but restricted to working as a Trackman until such time as he could prove that he could be depended upon to function acceptably as a

- ~~ - is9

Fa r eman, which had been his previous position. Reinstatement included 45 demerits outstanding on his record in June of 1984. Shortly a tter tIe returned to service, on August 17, .1984, he absenLed himself from duty without proper authority and his personal records stood with 55demerits. Subsequently, on May 22, .1985, Claimant requested consideration to being restored to po=*ition of Foreman. This was denied by Carrier approximately two week's later, based on the fact that he had--not, demonstrated, since his return to service, that he could handle and discharge t.ho respons3.bi.lities of a supervisory-position. It was based on thi.~; series of incidonts that -the claim herein was filed for reinstatement to his former position of Tract: Foreman.


Pkat.itioner insists that the extension of discipline involved in precluding Claimant 's return to the position,o'f Foreman was unwarranted and a violation of the Agreement. Carrier, on the other find. maintains that Claimant has done nothing since his leniency rein statement to change the opinion of the supervisors with respect to his ability to handle the job of supervisor. Furthermore, Carrier argues, that Claimant has not met his burden of prnof to show that he can handle- the position of Tract; Foreman.


It has lor,ct been held that the Carrier, exclusively, must make
 -1-7-? Y- i5 9

the determination and has the responsibility 'for determining the fi t_nryss aid ability of an employee for a particular position. This is indeed even more significant with the respect to the ability of all employee to handle a supervisory position. Carrier's decision in disputes involving such fitness and ability


questions are not subject to being overturned unless

 shown that the Carrier's action was based

 cDPricIoiAS ccnelUsions which are not warranted.

 the-re is no evidence whatever to suppport Petitioner's

 that Claimant had demonstrated his ability to handle the
 Foreman's position. Furthermore, again it must be noted, that the
 Carrier has the cxclUsive responsibility to determine fitness and

 ability and, since no arbitrary or capricious action was

 it can be

 on arbitrary or

contention

 3.rndicated, the claim must be denied.

 AWARD

 l3. 1·I . Uarmon ,
 Carrier Member

 iVhzcaqo, Illinois

 March31f ,1968

 Claim denied.

 I. M. Lieberman, Neutral-Chairman

2

2-