PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

            Chicago & North Western Transportation Company


STATEMENT OF CLAIM:

      "Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:


(1) The Carrier violated the Agreement when it assigned a junior employe to a bulletined machine operator's position and failed to assign Machine Operator D. A. Bochmann who was senior and qualified for the position (Organization File 4LF-2254T; Carrier File 81-88-151).

 (2) Machine Operator Bochmann shall now be assigned to the position he was held off
 and compensated for the differential between the trackman's rate of pay and the applicable
 902 Machine Operator's rate of pay for all hours rendered from June 25, 1988, and
 continuing."

 OPINION,' OF THE BOARD:
 This Board, upon the whole record and all of the evidence, finds and holds that the Employe and Carrier involved in this dispute are respectively Employe and Carrier within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as amended, and that the Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.
 On June 10, 1988, the Central Division released T-4 Advertisement Notice listing Bulletin No. 88-388 advertising the position of a 902 -Common Class Machine Operator to be
 PG8 ~9~o _2_ AWARD NO. 9Z

      headquartered at the Boone, Iowa, panel site. The Claimant made written application for and was subsequently assigned the position per Assignment Notice dated June 23, 1988, with a stated effective date of Saturday, June 25, 1988. On June 29, 1988, Correction Notice No. 0245 was released assigning the junior employe to Bulletin No. 88-388.

      A claim was then filed on behalf of the Claimant. It was denied by the Division Manager because the Claimant did not possess a valid driver's license and, therefore, was not viewed as qualified. In its appeal the Organization made several material assertions including (1) that the machine in question (speed swing) worked almost exclusively in the yard and was not required to operate on roads, (2) that the operation of the equipment on a public road did not require a driver's license, and (3) that the Claimant had been utilized on the speed swing after the bulletin to fill in for the incumbent. The Carrier's defenses at this point in time of the appeal did not change.

      At the Board, the Claimant acknowledged that a driver's license was not required to operate the speed swing on a public road. Instead, they said it was a test or requirement so the Carrier would be assured the employe could operate the vehicle safely. Therefore, the Claimant was not the senior qualified applicant.

      Any persuasive appeal in the Carrier's argument is voided by the fact that the Claimant was assigned to operate this machinery after the junior employe was awarded the job. It is extremely difficult to understand why the Claimant wasn't qualified at the time the final bulletin was issued but was qualified when the Carrier needed a replacement for the junior employe.

                                                        ILv

PL45 -2q& lo -3- AWARD NO.

          p:


          The claim is sustained.


                          Gil Vernon, Chairman


      D. . Bartholomay Jo . Harvieux

      Employe Member C ' r Member

      Dated: ~) - as::- ~ I - - - - -