Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTTEEb1T BOARD Award No. 7902
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 790I+
 2-IC GbA- t 79



Fatties to Dispute:


Disl7ute: Claim of ETnployes:












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

 The carrier or carriers and the employe or enployes involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and errpLoye vrithv.n the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 1934.

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

On May 7, 1973, the Carrier directed a letter via Certified hail -Return Receipt Requested, to the Claimant. The body of the letter read as follows:


Form 1 Award No . 7902
 Page 2 Docket No . 790P+
 2-IC G-I4A.-' 79

 A copy of the letter was sent to his home address and another in care of Madison County Jail, Anderson, Indiana. Another letter eras sent June 1+, 1973, to the Claimant in care of the jail, terminating his seniority in light of his .failure to respond within ten days of the May 7 letter.

 Upon his release from prison, in December 1976, the Claimant attempted to return to service but was refused. The Carrier at that time maintained, as it has maintained throughout the handling of the claim, that the Claimant's tex-minatio)Z was a proper result of "forfeiture" and that the discipline r??.Les do not apply to cases of forfeiture. The Organization argues the Claimant was disciplined without a hearing. Generally ire would
 agree with the Carrier., but not without qualification. The Board has marry
 times held that dis<w;ip:L i ne rules do not appl:y to situations where enployees
 fail to coriply, with certain requirements of the Agreement and where the
 Agreement specifically provides an automatic self-executing forteitta-re.
 Many Agreeinants a..ncl??de such forfeiture prov_s:ions for failure to return
 at the end. of a leave of absence, engaging in outside enpl oyment, or
 failing to file name and address after being x'`u..rlcughed. The Carrier also
 cites three First Division cases in support of their position. A cared
 review indicates these Awards can be disting~aa_shed. III Award iTo. 16 730
 (P,1cP.Tahon) the AgreGn.erxt specifically provided forfeiture for failinc to
 return to : e1 ,rice after a leave of absence. At~rard Rio. 15 039 turns on
 language where leaves were limited by agreement. Award No. 12 0?_8
 (Rudolph) dealt with a claimant accepting employment on another railroad.

 The Agreement does not provide for forfeiture of e_~ployeets seniority .for failing to give good cause for absence, TJOr does the record before us indicate there is any past practice to this effect. The Agreement does not include forfeiture far of?aside erplo~unent, and the Carrier asserts the same practice exists in respect to er.!ployes failing to file names and addresses after furlough and exnployes failing to return after a properly granted leave of absence; but the Agreement does not extend to this factual situation. To include specifz.caLy, one thing is to exclude specifically others, and by including forfeiture for outside e4mploynLnt only, the parties excluded forfeiture for failing to give good cause for absence. Others, however, may be sanctioned by past practice.

 The Carrier also argues that the entire claim is barred because the Claimant and the Local Committee, who were sent copies of both :Letters, did not file a claim within sixty days of June 4 taking exception to their actions. The Claimant and the Organization deny receiving the letters. We have stated before that in time lz?,:i.t issues the burden :is on the sending party to slow a claim or reply is received. As proof of receipt of the May 7 letters by the Cla:irnant, the Carrier offers copies of signed receipts. The Board is not convinced the Carrier has sustained the burden in this respect. The receipt sent to the jail v-as signed by two employees of the jail, the Carrier contends. The Claimant's name was signed to the receipt sent to the Claimant's home. The June L;- letter was sent to the jail and signed again by someone the Carrier asserts eras an er:plo;yee of the jail.
 Form 1 Award No. 7902
 page 3 Docket No, 7901+
 2-IC G-MA-' 79

 The Carrier has only proved that persons other than the Claimant signed the receipts. It has not supported its assertion that the signers of the cards sent to the jail were employees of the jail off, that; they were authorized agents to sign for the prisoners. Nor have their provided statements from the alleged employees that they did, in fact, deliver the letters to the Claimant. Regarding the letter sent to the Claimant's home May 71 the signature on the card obviously can not be Ga:Ll;.on's because it is agreed that he was in jail. Without a. showing that the letters were, in fact' received there can be no time limit violation. See: Second Division Award No. 7761 (Weiss) and Third Division Award No. 11505 (Dorset')
of a hearing and direct the Cla:unant be granted a hearing consistent i~rith
 Rule 39 to determine if the Claimant was absent 5~rithout permission in
 connection with his alleged absence from service beginW ng Taay 3, 1973.
 The question of seniority cannot properly be decided until a hearing is
 held. See: First Division Avard l;ro. 12 016 (Johnson) and Third Division
 A-vra ;rd No. 2_12`(2 (Quinn). We find f5-irthe4° subpart for our actions in Third
 Division Awards 272`3 (Shake)s 2637 (Shake) and 1193 (Shaw).

 The Board zTi_ll retain jurisdiction. Upon conclusion of the hear it-4; the case will be handled as disciplint:; cases cu;V.t.orarily are. Any fLtrtler actions of the parties nnzst be consistent v):i_tlz tree Agreeznent as of that date. The c:aestion of back T,rages and reinsta.tc-nent vTiL1 be dependent on the evidence brought out at that h~=,ring and ~;ri_11 be passed upon by this Board, if and s-ine:x properly referred to it. The decision is a narrow one and fitted to unique c:i.s°cumstances of this case.






Attest: Executive Secretary
 National Railroad Adjustment Board

                          ..:


t' ~~T.. -
 - osf=xnarie Braseh - Ad,:za.nistrative Assistant

 Dated at~ Chicago, Illinois, this 19th day of April, 1979·