PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

          Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees


                          and


          Consolidated Rail Corporation


STATEMENT OF CLAIM:

 Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:

      1. The Agreement was violated when the Carrier improperly

      assigned junior Foreman M. G. Ylosvai to perform overtime

      service on the Mon Line in South Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania on

      August 11, 12 and 13, 1995 (System Docket MW-4221).


      2. As a consequence of the aforesaid violation, senior

      Foreman P. C. Immel shall be compensated for thirty

      three (33) hours' pay "at the foreman's time and one

      half rate with proper credits for vacation and benefits

      purposes."


FINDINGS:

 This Board, upon the whole record and all of the evidence, finds and holds as follows:

 1. That the Carrier and the Employee involved in this dispute are, respectively, Carrier and Employee within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as amended,; and

      2. That the Board has jurisdiction over this dispute.


OPINION OF THE BOARD:

 A careful review of the record indicates that the Organization proved that the Carrier assigned a junior employee to perform the disputed work.

 Rule 3, titled Selection of Positions, provides in pertinent part:

      Section 1. Assignment to position.

      In the assignment of employees to positions under this Agreement, qualification being sufficient,


                            1

                                        SAN ~o ~- Awd r tPq


      seniority shall govern.


      The word "seniority" as used in this Rule means, first, seniority in the class in which the assignment is to be made, and thereafter, in the lower classes, respectively, in the same group in the order in which they appear on the seniority roster.


      Section 2. Qualifications for positions.

      In making application for an advertised position or vacancy, or in the exercise of seniority, an employee will be permitted, on written request, or may be required, to give a reasonable, practical demonstration of his qualifications to perform the duties of the position.


The record omits any credible evidence to substantiate the Carrier's explanation that a reasonable basis existed for the Carrier to conclude that the junior employee possessed the required qualifications to perform the disputed work whereas the senior Claimant lacked such required qualifications. In the absence of such critical evidence, the Carrier failed to provide any basis to support the decision of the Carrier to disqualify and to preclude the senior Claimant from performing the disputed work.

 AWARD:
The Claim is sustained in accordance with the Opinion of the Board. The Carrier shall make the Award effective on or before 30 days following the date of this Award.

                      obert L. Douglas

                Chairman and Neutral Member


R. D Robinson D. L. Ker y
 Emp yee Member Carrier Member
Dated: ~l~G~loJ

 2