i i


              W. H. Kennedy Ervin Taylor

              R. A. Kloenne R. E. Tebelman

              Jason Lewis Frank Thaman

              Clarence Lightner James D. Thomas

              W. 0. Lockett James D. Thompson

              G. S. Lucas Djoka Vukich

              Ralph Luebbering D. B. Walker

              James McGee Mildred Walker

              Dominick Mangino Raymond Washington

              James Meece P. G. Wenzel, Jr.

              Lonnie MAacy Helen Wilkins

              Handy Money Henry R. Williams

              H. G. Morgan Annie Wimbush

              W. H. Noble Harold M. Wood

              Wm. Pennington Louis Woodyard

              C. T. Percer


        OPINION OF BOARD: The instant claim alleges that carrier violated Rule

        17 of the controlling Agreement when it removed from the 1972 Cincinnati Union Terminal Company Seniority Roster the names of 79 claimants listed in the Statement of Claim filed by Petitioner herein. Accordingly, Petitioner demands the restoration of claimant's names to their former position on the seniority roster and that all rights, privileges and benefits to which


        At the outset, Carrier raises a procedural objection that the claim was not handled on the property "in the usual manner" and is, therefore,improperly before the the importance of orderly and timely handling of all grievances, as witnessed by numerous Awards iss such grounds as urged by Carrier herein. We do not derogate therefrom, however, when we temper our analysis of the instant case by considering the large number of persons involved and the fact that there was considerable handling of the disput all of the circumstances, we deem it appropriate in this case to proceed to a consideration of the merits rather than disposing of the matter upon a procedural technicality.


                Paragraph 2 of Rule 17 of the applicable Agreement provides:


                " toes desiring to protect their seniority rights

                and to avail themselves of this rule, MUST, within five

                (5) days from the date actually reduced to the furloughed

                list, file their names and addresses in duplicate in

                writing, both with the proper official (the officer author

                ized to bulletin and award positions) and the duly accredited

                representative, advise promptly of any change in address and

                renew names and addresses in November of each year, or FORFEIT


I
                Award Number 20711 Page 3

                Docket Number CL-20879


        "ALL SENIORITY RIGHTS, except in cases of personal illness or unavoidable causes." (Emphasis supplied.)


There is no question that claimants, inter alios were "reduced to the furlough list in 1971:' The Carrier states, and it has not been refuted, that at the time of their furlough claimants, and others reduced to the furlough list, were provided a prepared form upon which they could fill in their name and address to file with Carrier in compliance with Paragraph 2 of Rule 17. The record shows that said forms were completed and filed with their employing officer by 98 other furloughed employees but not by the 79 claimants herein. All who complied with the Rule were continued on the 1972 seniority roster when it was issued. The names of the 79 claimants were not so included because of non-compliance with the Rule.

 The language of Paragraph 2 of Rule 17 is clear and unambiguous. This Board cannot sit to dispense its personal brand of equity and industrial justice, but must inte Thus, the only issue presented on this record is whether Petitioner has proved by substantial and probative evidence that claimants complied with the Rule. Upon careful consideration of the record we conclude that the requisite proof has not been adduced.

 It is argued that claimants fulfilled the Rule requirement by applying for employment with the owning railroads of the Terminal Company under the provisions of Appendix C-1 of the National Rail Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) Agreement. owning railroads. But this did not have any effect upon the Agreement between the Terminal company a express mandatory requirements of Rule 17.

 There is no evidence in the record to support any contention that Carrier had established a practice which waived the requirements of Paragraph 2 of Rule 17. Rather what evidence there is as to practice is to the contrary. Moreover, the Board has held in numerous 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.

        We have no alternative but to deny the claim.

                  Award Number 20711 Page 4

                Docket Number CL-20879


FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, after giving the
 parties to this dispute due notice of hearing thereon, and upon
 the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:

 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 the Agreement was not violated.


                      A W A R D


        Claim denied.


                        NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                        By Order of Third Division


ATTEST:
      AacutivAeSecreta/ry~


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 9th day of May 1975.