Award Number: 30
 Case Number: 30
 PARTIES TO DISPUTE
 BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYES
 AND
 SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY
STATEMENT OF CLAIM
Track Repairman Helper, James Copeland, P. 0. Box 412, Hamilton. GA 31811 filed claim for time. Employes request difference in pay from August 29, 1983 and continuing until Claimant is allowed the position of track repairman. FINDINGS
 Claimant, at the time of the dispute in question, was employed by Carrier as a track repairman helper. By letter dated October 3, 1983, the Organization filed claim on the basis that Claimant was wrongfully denied the opportunity to qualify for a vacant position as track repairman.
The issue to be decided in this dispute is whether Claimant was entitled under the Agreement to qualify for the position in question.
The Organization asserts that Claimant was wrongfully denied an opportunity to qualify for the track repairman's position advertised by Carrier on June 28, 1983, contending that Claimant .-properly bid on the position, and therefore deserved at least a =
chance to qualify.The Organization further contends that
 Carrier's subsequent closing of the position on July 21, 1983, on the basis of no qualified applicants, violated Claimant's right under the Agreement to prove his fitness for the position.

 The position of the Carrier is that Claimant had no right to qualify for the position in question, and was therefore properly denied an opportunity to do so.
employee a right to qualify for a position only if he is a
 "qualified employee holding seniority in the rank and seniority
 district in which the vacancy exists." Carrier argues that
 Claimant did not have seniority in the rank of track repairman,
 and therefore was not entitled to the position in question.
 Carrier further argues that Rule 12(b) requires that an'employee
 already be "qualified" before bidding for the position. Carrier -
 contends that Claimant was clearly not "qualified" for the
 position, and cites statements of Track Supervisors G. R. Miles
 and J. R. Wall to substantiate its contention concerning Claim
 ant's competence. Finally, Carrier contends that the organiza
 tion's claim is based on the premise that Claimant should have
 been allowed to qualify while on the position, further indicating
 that he was not presently qualified. Carrier maintains that the
 Agreement nowhere requires that an unqualified employee be given
 a chance to qualify for a vacant position, and that Claimant's
 bid was therefore properly rejected in all respects.
3W/5-3D

 After review of the record, the Board finds that the Organization's claim must be denied.

 The Organization has failed to meet its burden of showing any violation of the Agreement with regard to Claimant's bid for the position. Rule 12 (b) clearly mandates that an employee must possess'rank seniority is order to have a "right" to bid on the position. Rule 12(b) further requires that an employee, in the absence of specific rank seniority, may bid on a position if to is "qualified." The Organization has failed to establish either that Claimant had rank seniority or that he was qualified for the position. The Organization has further failed to establish any contractual obligation on Carrier's part to allow an unqualified employee to qualify for a vacant position.

 AWARD -_



                              arrier em er


                              Org tion ember


DATE: ~G~ I~`~-7
                                                        -


3

                              3.,