PARTIES TO DISPUTE: BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE
 OF WAY EMPLOYEES
 -and
 CONSOLIDATED RAIL CORPORATION
 STATEMENT OF CLAIM:

 That the Agreement was violated when the Carrier failed to allow employee J. Thornton to displace junior employee G. Steffey on November 14, 1995. That employee J. Thornton be paid all straight time made by junior employee Steffey and all overtime credits for days and months.

 FINDINGS:



That the Carrier and Employees involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and Employees within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 1934;

Effective October 24, 1995, the Claimant was displaced from his regularly assigned Vehicle Operator position He worked various daily vacancies as a nonincumbent until November 14, 1995, when he was furloughed. The Claimant attempted to displace I&R Foreman Steffey at Latrobe, Pennsylvania. Mr. Steffey is junior to the Claimant. The Carrier refused to allow the displacement since it did not consider the Claimant qualified to work the I&R Foreman position.

 On December 18, 1995, the Organization filed a claim and/or grievance on behalf of the Claimant contending that he was qualified for the I&R Foreman position since he had worked as a Track Foreman for over a year. The Carrier denied the claim and/or grievance asserting that the Claimant may have been a qualified Track Foreman but he was not a qualified Track Inspector.

On Conrail, employees must have at least one (1) year of experience in railroad track inspection before they will be assigned to inspect track for defects. It is undisputed that the Claimant lacked the requisite one (1) year of experience in railroad track inspection. He had never demonstrated to the Carrier's I&R Supervisor that he was qualified to inspect railroad track. Therefore, Conrail had the right to decline his request to displace to the I&R Foreman's position at Latrobe, Pennsylvania.

 Although the Claimant had worked as a Track Forman for over one year the Track Foreman position and the I&R Foreman position have different duties and qualifications. Moreover, the Carrier had the right to establish qualifications for I&R Foremen on Conrail property in excess of those required by the Federal Railroad Administration.

 For all the foregoing reason, the instant claim must be denied since the Carrier has demonstrated that the Claimant was not qualified for the I&R Foreman position at Latrobe, Pennsylvania to which he wished to displace.

 AWARD: Claim denied.

                          1&4jog~ or, co

                          bert 7'Brien, Neutral Member


                          Roy C Robinson, Employee Member


                          0- 2- zl~

                          Dennis L. Kerby, Carri Member


Dated: Gr j3 p

 2