uoLq.PZLUe6.A0 ayj .Ao;Dadsul )oPaj q.UP4SLSSV SP aakoLdwa pa L,~LLPnb LLa(A pup snoLquaLos


-oadsul ~JP.aj qUPq.SLSSV jo UOLqLSOd ayq UL paoPLdsLp seM 4UPWLPL3 qPy~ san6.aP ,a auotqlqad

 paWJL..jPaa SLIM .Aoq.oadsuj ~JBJJj 4UPq.SLSSV z.0 VOL-4Lsod ayq oq. WLy 6uLu.an:~a,A q.ou j.o uoLlisod





-dea,cqou sem ay pau,anqa,AA quPWLPL3 uayM -aakoLdwa aayq.oue Xq paLLL.~ sem Ac;oadsuj xoe,aj

 -uelsLssV ay; ~o uo~q.Lsod ay; °aAPaL XOLS uo SLIM ay GUM '6Z6T `bT Aaqoqoo y6nwyq. 8L6T






-,aad ayq 10 uoLqoLpsL.anf say PUP 99t,-68 Mel oLLqnd Aapun paqnqtqsuoo kLnp s~ p.aaqa sty;





      _,uoL;Lsod aoZoadsuj )oP.Aj quP4SLSSy up UO paoe1d SL ay aWLq qons LLq.un snonuL4uoo put) `6L6T `SI uaqoqoQ BULUULbaq jajoqpl P SE ~ULALaDa.A s~ ~ ay gPd jo·aqar. ayq.·pue io4o@dsuj )o-ea_L q.uRq.SLSSV UP

    ..o Cpd 3.o aq.P.A ayq. UL aoua.Aa3.;Lp ayq pLPd aq mou LLPys SULLL03 :IuPWLPL3 *Z

    '6L6T `9T .aaqO~00 aAPaL ~OLS WOJJ butuanqa.t

    uayre Aoloadsul ~oP,Aj quP;sLSSy SP qoC -APLnBa,A s,Ly awnsaa oq. pamoLLP q.ou

    SLIM SuLLL03 'C-8 Aa.Aoqgl uayM q.uamaa.a6V 9ALyoa-43.a ayq. paqPLocA .AaLJ,AP3 'T


                  WIVID j0 :4Pyq peoq.aay4o.AB ayq. 3.o aa4q LWWOO Waq.SRS ay4 3.0 WLPLO_ LN3W3iV.LS


                              /Cuedw03 RPM!LPb uaa;samyqnoS SLnol -4S KUSH


            . Pup. Ol

                          saakoLdm3 R'eM _e aouPUaq.uLeW ..0 pooyJay;oJq S3I12iVd


          17VZ 'ON BSP3


          LET 'ON P·APMV


                      08Z 'ON l0w1Sf1COV j0 allvoo 1VI33dS

                                      ,36A 280- Aw0 157


argues that the Agreement was violated when Claimant was not permitted to return to work as an Assistant Track Inspector upon being released by his physician on October 74, 1979.

 Carrier argues that Claimant was never disqualified nor was he discriminated against in any sense. However, Carrier points out the position of Track Inspector or Assistant Track Inspector are not positions covered by the seniority requirements of the Agreement: Those positions are neither bulletined nor are they filled by bid. Both jobs are appointed and Carrier picks what it considers to be the best qualified employee for the type of work in question. Carrier argues that its decision not to replace Claimant in his prior job as an Assistant, Track Inspector was because Mr. Lock, his replacement, was better qualified. Carrier points out that the position of Assistant Track Inspector is covered by Addendum No. 6, Section 5 of the Memorandum Agreement between Carrier and the Organization which states as follows:

        "Section 5. Employees selected and assigned to any position referred to herein shall not be subject to promotion, assignment in displacement

        ' rules, but in filling such positions preference shall bd given to employees holding seniority rights in the Track Sub Department."


A review of the facts in this dispute. indicates that there is no rule support for Petitioner's position. The Board can find no contractual basis for Claimant's assertion that he was to be reinstated in his position of Assistant Track Inspector upon his return from sick leave. It is clear that this position is exempt , from the normal contractual rules with respect to promotion, seniority and prior rights. Thus, Carrier has the right to select an employee who it considers to be best qualified to handle the particular position involved regardless of seniority. While this Board must conclude that Claimant had no contractual right to the position, it notes that Carrier indicates that he is - well qualified for the position of Assistant Track Inspector (and has not been disqualified) and further, that Carrier indicates that Claimant would be considered forfuture openings in the particular type of position. AWARD Claim denied.

                                                      280-Awd. lSl

I.M1-Vi erman, Neutral-Chairman

 Carrier Member

 January , 1981 Houston, Texas

 Se4 = 2$0 --Awo 157

 Employee Member

 280-Awd_ 15-