Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 8397
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 5112
 2-B&O-CM-`80
 The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Abraham Weiss wren award was rendered.
 ( System Federation No. 4, Railway Employes'
 ( Departments A. F. of L. - C. I. 0.
 Parties to Dispute: ( (Carmen)


Dispute: Claim of Employes:








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 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.

Claimant was hired on August 10, 1951 at Clarksburg, W. Va. He was furloughed from his position as temporary car inspector early in 1958 until 1962 when he was asked to take a temporary position as carman. Claimant declined the position, stating he wanted to be recalled only for a permanent position. In May 1977, Carrier enlisted the Carmen's Organization to locate Claimant to offer him temporary carman work. Claimant was located through information supplied by his parents and he started, work on May 12, 1977. On may 27, 1977 Claimant filed the instant claim.

Form 1 Award No. 8397
 Page 2 Docket No. 8112
 2-B&O-CM-'80

 Claimant's employment record discloses he was hired as Cayman Helper; left for military service; returned to Carrier's service as Cayman Helper and was upgraded to temporary car inspector. On January 1, 1958, Claimant was returned to the status of Cayman Helper, from which position he was furloughed shortly thereafter.

 Petitioner alleges that Carrier violated Reduction in Force Rules 24 (c) and (g), which read:




any and all positions as "temporary mechanic"; that Claimant was living with his
 parents at the time he was furloughed in. 19589 that he filed his address and
 maintained contact with both the Carrier and Local Organization officers. ·"00'
 Petitioner adds that Carrier contacted Claimant in 1962; hence, Carrier knew
 how to reach him.

 harrier argues that it was only obligated to recall Claimant for Cayman Helpers' positions, and none was established subsequent to Claimant's furlough in 1858. When offered temporary Cayman work in 1962, Claimant declined, stating he wanted to be recalled curly for a permanent position. Moreover, Claimant filed no bequest for work under Rule 24(f) which states:

Carrier also points out that Claimant "never filed a request under Article IV of the August 21, 1954 Agreement requesting relief work,~or, in any manner ever request work of any nature, but that he stated in 1562 that he desired only permanent work. The fact is, Carrier states, no permanent work as a Cayman Helper has become available since 1962 or since his return to work in 1977. Carrier adds that there has been no recall of Cayman Helpers, "the only classification in which Claimant actually held seniority rights since his furlough in 1g58". Even Claimant's return to duty in May 1977 was to a temporary position, not a permanent one.

 Carrier asserts that following his furlough in 1958 Claimant did not file an address nor did he advise Carrier of his whereabouts, and in support, attaches confirming letters from Carrier's Car Foreman, from the Organization's Local
 Form 1 Award No. 8397
 Page 3 Docket No. 8112
 2-B&O-CM-'80

 Chairman, and from the Secretary of the Organization's Local Lodge. Carrier points out that Claimant's parents, who, Petitioner contends, made frequent inquiries to local management, live approximately 100 miles from Clarksburg.



2. Claimant failed to keep the Carrier (as well as his Local Lodge advised of his current address.

 3. Claimant did not request work under Article IV and never bid on or requested any position from the date of his furlough until May 1977.

 4. Claimant declined an offer of work as temporary carman in 1962 stat3aig he wanted to be recalled only for a permanent position. Claimant held seniority only as a Cayman Helper and there were no junior Carmen Helpers recalled to service at Clarksburg since his furlough. Since 1962, no permanent jobs as Cayman Helper or temporary Cayman we're created or filled. Claimant had no rights as temporary Cayman.

 5. Claimant's return fn May 1977 was not to a permanent position but a temporary one.

 6. Claimant's parents' address changed at least twice during the period in question and management was not notified.

 The record discloses that Claimant was returned to work in 1977 only after the Organization's Local Chairman located Claimant by getting in touch with Claimant's parents. Petitioner acknowledges that both in 1962 and in 1977 Carrier was able to reach Claimant only by requesting the assistance of the Organization's Local Chairman.

 This Board has on a number of occasions ruled that employees are responsible for providing management with information on their current address or change of address. Rule 2l+ (f) quoted supra ire clear and simple language places the burden on furloughed employees to provide their current address both to "local management and the local committee".

 Claimant has not met the burden of proof convincingly to demonstrate that he complied with such requirement, with respect to either local Carrier management or his local lodge. On both occasions when he was offered work opportunity following his furlough, local management had to call upon the officers of his local lodge to try' to locate him, and the latter, in turn, had to contact Claimant's parents to learn of his whereabouts.

 Based on the record before us, we find that Claimant failed to comply with the requirement of Rule 2l+(f); i.e., notifying Carrier of his address subsequent to his furlough. The Agreement places the responsibility of protecting seniority rights on the employee. In this instance, Claimant has not met such responsibility.

Form 1 Award No. 8397
 page 4 Docket No, 8112
 2-B&o-CM-'8o

 Petitioner alleges that in practice, Article IV of the August 21, 195+ Agreement "was not practiced or used on the property" until 5 or 6 years ago. Article IV provides, in pertinent part:

        "1. The Carrier shall have the right to use furloughed employees to perform extra work, and relief work on regular positions during absence of regular occupants, provided such employees have signified in the manner so provided in paragraph 2 hereof their desire to be so used ...


        2, Furloughed employees desiring to be considered

        available to perform such extra and relief work will

        notify the proper officer of the Carrier in writing,

        with copy to the local chairman, that they will be

        available and desire to be used for such work ,.,

        Furloughed employees who would not at all times be

        available far such service will not be considered

        available for extra and relief work under the provision

        of this rule ...."


Claimant indicated that he would be available only for permanent work. Moreover, this Board has ruled in numberous decisions that a rule that is clear and unambiguous may be invoked by either party at any time notwithstanding any alleged prior practice to the contrary. Accordingly, we have no alternative but to deny the claim.

                        A W A R D


    Claim denied.


                            NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                            By Order of Second Division'


Attest: Executive Secretary
 National Railroad Adjustment Board

 iRos marie Brasch - Administrative Assistant

 Dated t Chicago, Illinois, this 23rd day of July, 1980.