Smith did not, in accordance with the specific provisions of the second paragraph of Rule 48, file his address with the proper Carrier officer within ten (10) days from the date he was affected by force reduction nor did he make written application for employment every ninety (90) days and in accordance with the specific provisions of the third paragraph of Rule 48 "Failure to comply with these provisions ' * * will cause a forfeiture of all seniority rights unless a leave of absence has been granted" and a leave of absence had not been granted claimant Smith, therefore, he forfeited his seniority rights under the provisions of Rule 48.

Having forfeited his seniority under schedule rules several months earlier, claimant Smith had no seniority rights or employe relationship with the Carrier when the Signalman position here involved was advertised on Bulletin No. 42-368 dated November 12, 1962 and, consequently, he had no right under schedule rules to bid therefor nor was the Carrier under any obligation to consider any such bid on the part of claimant Smith.

The Carrier submits that it is readily apparent that by the claim which they have here presented the employes are attempting to secure through the medium of a Board Award in the instant case something which they do not now have under the rules and in, this regard we would point out that it has been conclusively held that your Board is not empowered to write new rules or to write new provisions into existing rules.

The Carrier submits that there is absolutely no basis for the instant claim and we respectfully request that it be denied.

(Exhibits not reproduced.)

OPINION OF BOARD: On or about June 1, 1962, Claimant, regularly assigned as Signal Maintainer at Ellensburg, Washington, was displaced by a senior Signal Maintainer. Claimant, in turn, notified Carrier that he was exercising displacement right over a junior Signal Maintainer located at Calder, Idaho; but, Claimant failed to report for duty at Calder within 10 days thereafter. Subsequently, he bid on an advertised Signalman position in a Coast Division Gang. Carrier awarded the position to a junior employe because, Carrier contended and now contends, that:

"Mr. Smith [Claimant] forfeited his seniority rights with the Carrier when he failed to comply with provisions of the schedule rules relating to reduction in force . . .

Rule 48 is concerned with "employes laid off by reason of force reduction". Since Claimant was not laid off by reason of force reduction, Rule 48 is not applicable.

The Agreement contains a specific Rule as to the seniority entitlements of an employe in the factual situation of this case. It is:

"RULE 41. (a) Employes whose positions have been abolished, who have been laid off by reason of force reduction, or who have been displaced, must exercise displacement rights if they desire or are required to do so by the provisions of Rule 40 within ten (10) days from date of abolishment, lay off, displacement or expiration date of leave of absence.

"(b) Employes failing to report for duty within ten (10) days from the date they exercise displacement rights, forfeit such rights and may only bid on vacancies or new positions except when prevented from doing so by reason of sickness or injury to themselves or when granted a leave of absence under provisions of Rule 44."

Rule 41(b) makes clear that Claimant did not forfeit his seniority rights, or terminate the employer-employe relationship, by failing to replace the employe at Calder within the 10 days. The penalty for the failure, as prescribed in the Agreement, was loss of the right to displace on that or any other position. However, expressly reserved to Claimant was the right to "bid on vacancies or new positions". In bidding on the advertised position in the Coast Division Gang, Claimant exercised this right. Carrier was obligated to honor the bid with recognition of Claimant's seniority. Its failure to do so was in violation of Rule 4,1 (b) of the Agreement. We will sustain the Claim.

FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:

That the parties waived oral hearing;

That the Carrier and the Employes involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and Employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934;

That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and

That Carrier violated the Agreement.

AWARD