Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 28144
THIRD DIVISION Docket No. MW-28029
89-3-87-3-800
The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee John E. Cloney when award was rendered.
(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(The Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:
(1) The Carrier violated the Agreement when it removed the name of
Mr. David Belinte from the Group 11, Class 1 System Steel Gang seniority
roster within a letter dated March 18, 1986 (System File 240-2-872/11-96040-65).
(2) The March 18, 1986 letter addressed to Mr. Belinte shall be
rescinded and he shall have his seniority restored with the seniority dates he
held prior to the violation referred to in Part (1) hereof and he shall be
compensated for all wage loss suffered as a consequence of said violation."
FINDINGS:
The Third Division of the Adjustment Board upon the whole record
and all the evidence, finds that:
The carrier or carriers and the employe or employes involved in this
dispute are respectively carrier and employes within the meaning of the
Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 1934.
This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the
dispute involved herein.
Parties to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing thereon.
Claimant, who entered service on May 7, 1980, properly filed his name
and address for recall purposes upon being furloughed.
By letter dated February 28, 1986, Claimant was notified he was being
recalled and was to report on March 17, 1986. The letter warned failure to
report would result in loss of seniority. When he failed to report he was
notified by certified letter to the same address that he was dropped from the
seniority roster.
Form 1 Award No. 28144
Page 2 Docket No. NW-28029
89-3-87-3-800
Rule 2(c) reads in pertinent part:
"Employe(s) laid off in force reduction
shall retain their seniority provided they (1)
file their address in writing within fifteen
(15) calendar days after being displaced; and
(2) promptly report in writing any subsequent
changes in their address. The reporting re
quired herein must be addressed to the officers
designated below:
x x x
Failure to meet any of the requirements as above
specified, failure to report on the date indicated in the notification of recall, not to
exceed fifteen (15) calendar days from date
of notification of recall forwarded to the employe's last known address, without a satisfactory reas
seniority in the class where recalled. When an
employe forfeits seniority under this provision,
he will be notified thereof, in writing, with
copy to the General Chairman."
Claimant was seeking employment in Tucson, Arizona, when the recall
letter arrived and it was not forwarded by his family.
The Organization argues Claimant's failure to receive the February
28, 1986, recall letter constituted a satisfactory reason under Rule 2(c) for
his failure to report. However, in all Awards it cited the failures to report
timely could be said to have been caused or contributed to by Carriers' actions such as failure to p
confusing reporting dates or instructions.
No such element is present in this case. We have uniformly held
rules such as Rule 2(c) to be self enforcing. As the evidence shows a properly addressed letter was
fact received at that address, we have no choice but to deny this claim.
A W A R D
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division
Attest:
Nancy J. v -Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 16th day of October 1989.