Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 11547
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 11223
 88-2-86-2-43
 The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Eckehard Muessig when award was rendered.
 (International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
 PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
 (Seaboard System Railroad

 STATEMENT OF CLAIM:

 1. That the Seaboard System Railroad Company violated the Controlling Agreement, in particular Rule 23(b) when Electrician A. M. Castro's name was unjustly removed from the seniority roster and terminated at Tampa, Florida.

 2. That accordingly, the Seaboard System Railroad Company compensate Electrician A. M. Castro in the amount of eight (8) hours pay per day at the pro rata rate continuous from the date Carrier removed his name from seniority roster until the date Mr. Castro is allowed to return to work and all other rights accrue to his position at Tampa, Florida.

 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 employes within 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.

The Claimant had been furloughed from his Electrician position in Tampa, Florida in September 1982. On July 18, 1984, the Carrier sent a letter to the Claimant, which was sent by certified-return receipt mail, to his address as shown on the records of the Carrier. This letter informed him that he had been recalled to work at Tampa, Florida. The letter provided detailed instructions as to whom to contact, physical examination requirements, etc., and it advised the Claimant that if he failed to contact the Carrier within the next ten days or to give satisfactory reason for not doing so, his employment status would be terminated. The letter was returned to the Carrier marked "Unclaimed" by the U.S. Postal Service.

 On July 30, 1984, another letter was sent to the Claimant at the same address used for the July 18th letter. In part, it stated that, because he
 Form 1 Award No. 11547
 Page 2 Docket No. 11223
 88-2-86-2-43

 had rejected the recall "per phone conversation with your wife on July 26, 140
 1984", his seniority had been terminated. This letter also was returned mark
 ed "Unclaimed" by the Postal Service.
 The Claim at issue was submitted on December 26, 1984. The Claimant
 mainly contends that the only contact he had with the Carrier was conveyed
 through his wife; that the recall to work was for a temporary job; that he did
 not receive either of the two certified letters; that at the time the Carrier
 contacted his wife, he was in the process of moving; and that he left her work
 telephone number so that he could be contacted should a permanent job -become
 available.
 The Claim was rejected by the Carrier on the basis that it was not
 submitted in a timely fashion, in this case, sixty days after the Claimant's
 July 30, 1984 termination. The Carrier also rejected the Claim on its merits
 because the Claimant failed to respond to his recall to work within ten days.
 Following further exchange of correspondence on the property, the
 Claim was progressed to this Body for adjudication. Under the circumstances
 prevalant herein, the Board concludes that this matter may be best disposed of
 on its merits.
 Rule 23(b) requires the Claimant to provide the Carrier with a proper
 mailing address. He did not do so. Instead, he chose to rely upon a line of
 communication that consisted of his wife's work phone number, as essentially
 brought forth in the various pieces of correspondence of record. While there
 are a number of contentions, the Claimant mainly relies upon his assertion
 that the Carrier's vacancy was of a temporary nature. We find no substantive
 evidence in the record developed on the property that the position for which
 the Claimant was recalled was temporary.
 In summary, while we appreciate the substance of the Organization's
 arguments on the property and its vigorous stand before this Board, these can
 not overcome the Claimant's own inaction. He was aware that a position was
 available and that he had not provided a proper address to the Carrier. Under
 the circumstances, it was incumbent upon him to take more positive measures to
 assure open and clear lines of communication between he and the Carrier. His
 failure to do so was at his peril.
 A W A R D




Attest: _
        Nancy J. r - Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 31st day of August 1988.