Foam 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No .7770
 SECOND DTTISION Docket No. 7359
 2-AT&SF-EW-'78



Parties to Dispute: ( (Electrical Workers)


Dispute: Claim of Employes:
That the Carrier erred and violated the contractual rights of Mr. W. E. Stagnex by failing to ,recall him from his furloughed status.

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

 The carrier ox carriers and the employe or employer involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employe within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as approved Jane 21, 1934.

 This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.

Claimant VJ. E. Stagner was employed as an Electrician at Carrier's San Bernardino Shops with seniority date of November 13, 1973. He was injured and took a medical leave of absence in May 1975. Another, Electrician, A. W. Teeters, was hired the sane day as Claimant, November 13, 1973, but under a procedure of using alphabetizing as a "tie-breaker", Teeters listed imnediatc=ly below Stagner on the January 1, 1975 seniority list.

 In June 1975 Carrier reduced forces at San Bernardino and a number of employees, including Stagner and Teeters were laid off effective close of business June 2, 1975. Under date of June 5, 1975 Carrier sent to Claimant Stagnex a letter reading as follows:

 1
 Form 1 Award No. 7770
 Page 2 Docket No. 7359
 2-AT&SF-EW-'78






Claimant made no response to that letter. Therefor, under date of August 1, 1975 Carrier by letter, to Claimant, copy to his Local Chairman, advised Mr. Stagner as follows:





No response or reaction was received from either Claimant or the Organization when Stagnex's name was removed from the seniority list.

 From the record we may infer that Mr. Teeters complied with Rule 24(c) and his name remained on the seniority list. When the force at San Bernardino was increased on January 5, 1976, Teeters was called back to work. Claimant was not recalled and by letter dated February 11, 1976 this claim was initiated by the Organization on his behalf.

 Rule 24, which is at the heart of. this dispute, reads in pertinent part, as follows:
Foam 1 Award No. 7770
 Page 3 Docket No. 7359
 2-AT&SF-EW-'78
 "result in forfeiture of seniority and right to recall
 to service.
 This Section (c) shall not apply in the case of an
 employe who is force reduced in one classification and
 continues employment in another classification under
 the provisions of the Shop Crafts' ox Firemen and
 Oilers' Agreements at the same location.
 (d) In restoration of forces, including advertised
 temporary vacancies, employes will be returned to
 service in order of their seniority, if available,
 except as provided 9.n Rule 19, within fourteen (14)
 days providing they are qualified to handle the work of
 the position to be filled. If not so qualified, the
 employe will stand by and the next furloughed employe
 will be called. An employe failing to notify officer
 in charge, within ten (10) days after notice of recall
 has been mailed to his last recorded address, of his
 intention to return to work will result in forfeiture of
 seniority and right to recall, unless proof of
 disability is furnished the officer in charge within said
 ten (10) days and unless such time is extended because
 of serious illness or injury. Em ployes left unplaced
 shall be considered off in force reduction but shall be
 subject to further call when additional men are needed
 providing they comply with all the requirements of this
 rule."

 It is not refuted that Claimant failed to comply with the condition subsequent to his continued listing on the seniority roster under Rule 24, i.e... notifying Carrier of his address. The sole question, presented on this record is whether his failure may be excused or justified by Carrier's failure to mail to him the address registration forms without being asked to do so. The Rule itself is silent or at best ambiguous on this point. On this record we have no evidence of practice or tradition to aid in discernir~D~ the intent of the parties. We are unable to conclude in the facts of this case that Carrier violated Rule 2I+(c) by not voluntarily mailing to Claimant the address registration forms. Perhaps it would have been a decent thing and a kindness to do so since the employee was off on medical disability but given the express Agreement language and the factual record before us we cannot conclude that it was a contractual obligation. Carrier advised Claimant to comply with Rule 24(c) but he exhibited not even a flicker of interest in doing so. His failure to file his address in June 1975 is not excused by Carrier's failure to initiate the mailing of his foxn. His failure to notify Carrier in writing of his current address in December 1975 remains wholly
 Form 1 Page 4

 Award No. 7770
 Docket No. 7359
 2-AT&SF-EW-'78

 unexplained. Under the clear and unambiguous language of Rule 24 we have no alternative but to deny the claim. See Awards 7+69, 4336 and 257 (Second); 20711, 17596, 15678, 12858 and 9457 (Third).

 A WAR D

 Claim denied.

 Attest: E~:ecutive Secretary
 National Railroad Adjustment Board

NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

By Order of Second Division


BY
 ~"_ osemarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant

 Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this

 20th day of December, 1978.