(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:

 (1) The Carrier violated the Agreement when it notified Messrs. B. II. Ifohenstein, L. V. Langston, Wilmar Scott, J. J. Sheffield, R. L. Davis, R. 1.. Dixon, Anthony Cianciaruli, Andrew Johnson, Rabin Jarriel, Robert Gordon, A. Ii. Reed, W. A. Dixon, I:cubin 17ushing and J. it. Hurd that they had forfeited their ~cnioriey and severed their employment relationship with the Company due to aller:od lailure to comply with Rule 32 (e) of the Agreement. /System File t.-i (T'I'C;)/

 (21 'rhe Carrier shall restore the 14 aforenamed employes to their rightful places on the appropriate seniority roster or rosters.

 OPINTON OF fiOARD: Claimants allege violation of the Agreement account Carrier
 improperly invoking Rule 32 (e) of the Agreement, thereby
 wrongfully divesting claimants of seniority rights and severing their employ
 ment relationship with Carrier. Claimants ask to be restored to their appro
 priate seniority roster or rosters.

A voluminous record, including Carrier's Exhibits A through P, shows that on January 16, 1963, the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees issued a strike call to all of its members employed by Carrier. The strike was scheduled to and did begin at 6:00 A.M. on January 23, 1963. Also on January 16, 1.963, the Carrier notified all of its employees that their positions would be abolished
The record shows that at all times herein relevant the claimants were on legal strike.

 In February 1970, while claimants were still on a legal strike, Carrier mailed job vacancy bulletins to each claimant at the address listed in Carrier's files. The envelops containing these bulletins were returned to Carrier by the U. S. Post Office bearing various notations to the effect that claimants were not at the listed address.
                              Award Number 19503 Page 2

                              Docket Number MW-19451


            Carrier then wrote to each claimant advising that mail sent to the last address furnished Carrier had been returned by the Post Office and that he had forfeited his seniority rights and severed his employment relationship with the Carrier. In this communication Carrier quoted Rule 32 (e) as the basis for the forfeiture of seniority and loss of employment relationship.


                  Rule 32 (e) reads as follows:


                      "(e) When employes laid off by reason of force reduction desire to retain their seniority rights they must file their names and addresses in writing not later than ten (10) calendar davs from date cut off. This notice from the employe must be sent in duplicate to the head of his department, the Roadmaster for the Roadway Sub-Department; the Supervis Water Supply Sub-Department, and the Superintendent for Crossing Watchmen Sub-Department, which officer will return one copy receipted to the employe. Periodic renewal of address is not thereafter required, but it is the responsibility of the employe to advise promptly in similar manner of any change in address. Until an employe has complied with this rule he has no service rights under his seniority status. Failure to comply with this rule will cause automatic forfeiture of seniority and employment relationship."


                            CONTENTIONS OF PARTIES


            In progressing the claim on the property the Organization contended that claimants, being participants in a legal strike, were not subject to the application of Rule 32 (e). Award No. 15021 and Award No. 16075, between this Carrier and another craft and dealing with a change-of-address rule similar to the one herein, were urged as supportive of the claim.


            Carrier asserted that these Awards dealt with a rule sufficiently different from the one herein invoked by Carrier. to make their rulings inapplicable to this case. C to an employee on legal strike.


                                RESOLUTION


            The record, including Carriers comprehensive submission, clearly establishes that the claimants were on a legal strike at all times relevant herein. Consequently, and notwithstanding Carrier's contentions as to differences between the rul


a
                    Award Number 19503 Page 3

                    Docket Number MW-19451


herein,we are unable to find any substantial distinction between the principle involved here and the one involved in those Awards. We regard those prior Awards as determinative of the issues herein and we shall therefore 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, os approved June 21, 1934;

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

        'I'h:it 1 he Agreement was violated.


                    A W A R D


        CInim sustained.


                        NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                        By Order of Third Division


ATTEST:
        Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 30th day of November 1972.