Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 786
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 7306-I-T
 2-BNI-I-t 78




Parties to Dispute: ( Burlington Northern Inc.
 ( and
 ( Brotherhood Railway Carmen of the U.S. and Canada

 Dispute: Claim of Employes:







Findings:
The Second Division of tre Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that:

 The carrier or carriers and the employe or employes involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employe within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 193+.

 This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.
 Form 1 Award No. 7+86
 Page 2 Docket No. 7306-I-T
 2-BNI-I-'78

The Claimant was employed by the Carrier as a Carman Apprentice at the St. Cloud, Minn. car shop facility. As a result of force reduction at the St. Cloud shop the Claimant's position was furloughed by a bulletin dated July 16, 1975 to be effective July 22, 1975. The Claimant eras advised that in line with Rule 22(g) he must exercise his seniority to displace junior carmen apprentices within his seniority district. The Claimant exercised his seniority at Grand Forks, North Dakota, a point within his seniority district, and reported for work on Friday, July 25, 1975. However, the Claimant worked. at Grand Forks just one day and did not return the following Monday. Furthermore, the Claimant left no word with the car foreman or arty other Carrier official as to his whereabouts or status. Thus, it was concluded that the Claimant had abandoned his assignment and his file was consequently closed and the usual resignation forms were forwarded to him at his last known address at St. Cloud.

 In Jarnaary of 1976, the Carrier began hiring laborers for its St. Cloud shops and the Claimant was among those employees rehired to fill available positions. The Claimant thereafter progressed a claim on his own behalf seeking a return of his former seniority as a carman apprentice. The Claimant alleges that Rule 22(g) did not require that he exercise his seniority outside St. Cloud and that he was dismissed without a fair and impartial investigation in line with Rule 35(a).

 The Claimant was well aware that he had district-wide seniority and that he had an obligation to "bump" a junior c arman apprentice at Grand Forks. It is a well-established principle that a mutually agreed-upon interpretation of a collectively bargained-for rule must prevail. The negotiating parties have historically interpreted Rule 22(g) of the controlling Agreement as requiring employes whose positions are furloughed or abolished to exercise their seniority to the fullest possible extent throughout their seniority district. By abandoning his position at Grand Forks after only one day on the job, the Claimant failed to fulfill his obligations under the Agreement and as a result he forfeited his carman apprentice seniority rights.

 Furthermore, the Claimant's charge that he was dismissed without an investigation is without merit since he voluntarily removed himself from the Carrier's service. Having exercised his seniority at Grand Forks as he was required under the contract to do, it was the Claimant's further obligation to protect that assignment. His failure to do so cannot be construed as a Carrier-imposed disciplinary act, and therefore, he was not entitled to a disciplinary investigation as he now claims.
Foam 1 Award No. 7+86
 Page 3 Docket No. 7306-I-T
 2-BNI-I-'78






Attest: Executive Secretary
 National Railroad Adjustment Board

      ,~emarie Brasch - Achirinistrative Assistant


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 4th day of April, 1978.