PARTIES TO DISPUTE:


STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:
(1) The Carrier violated the Agreement when it failed to recall furloughed Trackman E. M. Oyler to service on April 1, 1982 (System File C-TC-1349/MG-3488).
(2) Because of the aforesaid violation, Trackman E. M. Oyler shall be allowed sixteen (16) hours of pay at his straight time rate for April 1 and 2, 1982.
OPINION OF BOARD: By letter of April 20, 1982, the Organization filed a time
 claim on behalf of E. Oyler, a furloughed Trackman, due to
 Carrier's alleged violation of Claimants seniority rights. It was the contention
 of the Claimant that junior employes were recalled to work ahead of him in violation
 of the Agreement in force. During the progression of this claim on property the
 Carri6r did not deny that Claimant held seniority or that junior employes had
 been recalled to work prior to Claimant. Carrier maintained that "telephone
 calls were made on March 29, 30, 31 ... and Mr. Oyler could not be reached until
 April 2 at which time he was advised to return to work on Monday, April 5. The
 younger trackmen reported to work on April 1 as they could be reached by telephone".
 It further developed that in fact Carrier personnel had contacted Claimant's home
 and requested the phone number of another junior Trackman on March 30th, but did
 not at that time talk to Claimant.
Claim before this Board centers upon the action of Carrier in its compliance with the Agreement in force. The Organization argued numerous Rules violations including 2, 3, 5, 9 1/2 and 66. Central to this claim is Rule 5(a) which is the applicable Rule in the "Protection of Seniority When Cut Off and Recalling to Service". Under that Rule employes are required to provide their "name and address" and to provide in writing any "change of address. They are not required to provide telephone numbers, but "recall to service will be at the address on file". The record as developed on property indicates that Carrier personnel took the responsibility of insuring that each employe would receive his recall notification personally. In the instant case Carrier had a contractual responsibility to contact Claimant for recall at the last address on file. In contacting furloughed employes by telephone Carrier did not absolve itself from the seniority recall provisions or that responsibility. From an evidentiary position Claimant should have been informed on March 30th when in fact a call to his home was made and substantiated in the record. Carrier failed to provide any evidence on property as to the telephone calls made on March 29th and further why Claimant was not recalled on March 30th or 31st, 1982. It is the determination of this Board that Carrier failed to meet its contractual obligations. This ruling is consistent with a similar ruling by this Board (Third Division Award 23130).
                    Locket Number MW-25266


        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 the Agreement was violated.


                        A W A R D


        Claim sustained.


                          NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                          By Order of Third Division


Attest:· . i
 Nancy er - Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 28th day of February 1985. ;.