The Claimant had previously been disqualified on April 21, 1992 as an Operator of a Scarifier, a Class A machine, because of "unacceptable performance". In September 1996, while classified as a Machine Operator B, the Claimant was again assigned to operate a Scarifier. In doing so, according to the Carrier, he was involved in five separate instances of unacceptable performance between September 3 and September 17.

Following an investigative hearing, the Claimant was assessed a ten-day disciplinary suspension and was disqualified from

operating all machines. The Organization protested both the suspension and the fact that the Claimant's disqualification encompassed -4-U machine operation, rather than simply the Scarifier. An attempt to settle the matter in compromise fashion was not successful, so that the original disciplinary action remained in effect.

Because of the varied nature of the Claimant's reported poor performance, the Board sees no basis to disturb the ten-day disciplinary penalty. As to disqualification, it is the carrier's well established prerogative to determine the qualifications of its employees. Under the circumstances, the Board has no reason to question the Carrier's action in regard to the Claimant's operation of any on-track machines such as the Scarifier. No basis was offered, however, for disqualifying the Claimant as a Machine operator C, involving hand-operated machines.

The Award will support the disciplinary suspension and the disqualification of the Claimant as operator of on-track equipment (Machine Operator A and B). The Award will further provide that the disqualification should not extend to barring the Claimant from a filling a vacancy in a Machine Operator C position for which his seniority may make him eligible.

Lfq-)9-Y4

A W A R D