Herbert L. Marx, Jr., Referee


              (Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes


PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
              (Southern Pacific Transportation Company (Eastern Lines)


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

 (1) The Carrier violated the Agreement when it refused to permit Apprentice Foreman C. Francis to displace a junior apprentice foreman at Crowley, Louisiana on December 7, 1982 (System File MW-83-17/378-89-A).

 (2) Because of the aforesaid violation, Mr. C. Francis shall be allowed eight (8) hours of pay at the apprentice foreman's rate for each work day beginning December 7, 1982 continuing until he is allowed to displace a junior apprentice foreman."

              OPINION OF BOARD: Some of Lhe circumstances in this Claim are not in dispute. These are as follows:


1. Claimant was furloughed by reason of force reduction from his position as Apprentice Foreman on December b, 1982.

 2. At that time and for some period thereafter, an Apprentice Foreman with less seniority than the Claimant remained in service, and the Claimant's seniority apparently would have entitled him to displace the junior employee.

 3. The Claimant appeared in the Carrier's office on December b, 1982, the day on which he was furloughed.

 4. On Januarv 25, 1983, the Claimant appeared in Carrier's office requesting to displace the less senior Apprentice Foreman.

 5. The Claimant was denied the right to make such displacement, under the terms of Article 3, Section 1(h).

 There remains in !ispute the question of what occurred on December 1982. The Claimant states that he was advised that there was no opportuni_: for him to make a displacpment. He states he accepted this information unt:, he learned of the incumbency of the junior employee, which he brought to tnp Carrier's attention on Januarv 25, 1983. The Carrier, on the other hand, states that Carrier representatives in the office at the time claim that t Claimant made no request for displacement.

        Applicable Rule; ire as follows:

                      Award Number 25962 Page 2

                      Docket Number MW-25682

                      "ARTICLE 3


          SECTION 1. (a) When force is reduced, the senior men in the sub-department, on the seniority district, capable of doing the work, shall be retained. Such employees affected, either by position being abolished or being displaced, may displace junior employees of their own rank or class on their seniority district.


          (b) Employees displaced account position abolished or reduction of force must exercise their rights to regular position within ten (10) calendar days following date of displacement; failing to displace within the (10) calendar days they shall forfeit their rights to displace a regularly assigned employee and shall take their place on the extra list with preference to work over junior emplovees thereon.


          (g) When forces are increased, or in filling temporary vacancies, senior laid off employees in their respective rank, seniority group and seniority district will be given preference in employment. Fmployees desiring to avail themselves of this privilege and retain their seniority rights must file their name and address in writing with the appropriate division officer, with copy to District Chairman, within ten (10) calendar days of the date laid off, and renew same if address is changed during the period laid off . . . .


The Rules specify that if the Claimant made his initial displacemert request on January 25, 1983, it was beyond the time limit specified in Article 3, Section 1(b) and did not require being honored by the Carrier. There remains the question of whether the Claimant requested placement on December and was denied such request by the Carrier, despite the availability of a position, or whether he failed to make such request. The Board does not have the capacity to resolve such contradictory allegations, with the result that the Claim must fail.

 The Carrier points out, however, that there would have been a necessary consequence if in fact Claimant had been advised on December 6, IQN= that he could not make a displacement. This is encompassed in Article 3, Section 1(g), which requires laid off employees wishing to be given "preference" in employment to file their name and address with the Carrier f)r this purpose. The Carrier states without contradiction that the Claimant failed to do so. This casts further doubt on the Claimant's version of what occurred.
                        Award Number 25962 Page 3

                      Docket Number MW-25682


        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 Emploves 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

                            Bv Order of Third Division


Attest:

      Nancy J. Dever - ExectiLive Secretarv


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 14th day of March 1986.