PARTIES Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
 TO
 DISPUTE: and
 Seaboard System Railroad
 STATEMENT 1. The disqualification of J. P. Frieslander
 OF
 CLAIM: as Track Foreman was improper and without just
 and sufficient cause.
 2: Therefore
 a. J. P. Frieslander's personal record shall
 be cleared of, all reference to said disqualifica
 tion;
 b. He shall be allowed a track foreman's
 seniority date as of April 18, 1983 and he shall
 be allowed to exercise properly such seniority;
 and
 c. He shall be compensated for all wage
 loss suffered.
 FINDINGS: After serving as a laborer and apprentice fore
 man, claimant was assigned, subject to his ability
 to qualify, to a bulletined position of section
 foreman.
 At the time of his assignment as foreman, he

 was informed in a letter from Division Engineer Freeman that Mr.

Freeman and any of his-staff as well as the Roadmaster "will be.
 happy to assist you in any way possible." The letter went on to
 specify the minimum requirements that would to be met and pointed
 out that the assignment "is subject to your ability to qualify."
 Twenty-five days-after his assignment as fore
 man, claimant was advised by Roadmaster Ferri that his inexperience
 and lack of basic foreman skills make it essential that he be dis
 qualified.from foreman rank until such experience is established.

 On the following day, claimant was formally disqualified. -
 At the hearing that was held in this matter,
 Mr. Ferri testified as to specific ways in which claimant failed
 to meet minimum requirements. According to Mr. Ferri, claimant
 did not prepare adequately for his work or properly pull track,
 did not know the spiking or anchor pattern, did not properly in
 stall stand ties, fill out forms correctly or consult with the Road
 master regarding techniques. .
 Foreman Mestas corroborated the Roadmaster's
 testimony in several respects.
 Rule 12 of the applicable Agreement provides
 as follows in pertinent part:

                Section 1: A promotion is an advancement from a lower rank to a higher rank.


                Section 2: Promotion shall be based on ability and seniority; seniority shall prevail if ability is suffi-

                cient, of which the Management shall -

                be the judge, subject to appeal as

        ' provided for in Rule 39. In promo-

                tion, the provisions of Rule 6, Sec-

, tion 2, shall apply.
                                                          3


379'~-~ _


                      Section 4: Employees accepting promotion will be given a fair chance to demonstrate their ability to meet requirements of the position; if failing to so qualify within sixty (60) calendar days, the position will be declared vacant, and the employee may return to his former rank in accordance with Rule 13, Section 3.


It is well established that where, by agreement,-
 promotions are based on ability and seniority, Management will be
 allowed considerable latitude in determining whether the employee
 involved is qualified for the promotion. This is all the more true
 here, where the Agreement expressly provides that "Management shall-
 be the judge," subject to appeal, of ability. We are in accord
 with the oft repeated principle that once the Carrier has de
 termined, under such a provision, that the employee lacks the nec
 essary ability, the-employee must show by persuasive proof that
 the Carrier's decision to set aside his promotion was arbitrary or
 prompted by some improper consideration.
 The present record does not show that Management
 acted improperly in disqualifying claimant. The fact that he was
 not given a full 60 days to qualify is not controlling. Rule 12
 Section 4 does not require a 60-day, trial period; its provision
 is that the promoted employee must qualify "within" 60 days. Car- -
 rier has the option under that Rule to remove an employee within
 the 60-day period.
 We are satisfied from a careful review of this
 record that Carrier's action was not without reasonable cause.
 Accordingly, no compensation for wage loss is due in this case.
                                                        4


      However, claimant's seniority should be restored as of April 18, 1983 for bidding purposes only, for a track foreman position.


      AWARD: Claimant's seniority should be restored for

      bidding purposes only as of April 18, 198.3

      for a track foreman position. All other items

      of the claim are denied. To be effective

      within 30 days.

      Adopted at Jacksonville, Florida,~.`~ 1985

      ~i

                                  I ,\


                        Harold M. Weston, Chairman


            n


' C rrier member Employee Memb r