Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 28290
 THIRD DIVISION Docket No. MW-28193
 90-3-87-3-777
 The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Marty E. Zusman when award was rendered.

 (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 terminated the seniority and closed the service record of Tongman S. Gonzalez (System File D-86/013-210-21).

 (2) The claimant shall be reinstated with seniority and all other rights unimpaired and he shall be compensated for all wage loss suffered as a consequence of the violation referred to in Part (1) hereof."

 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.

This is a seniority termination case in which Claimant is alleged to have failed to comply with Rule 21 of the Agreement. Said Rule requires Claimant within ten (10) day exercise his displacement rights or to file for recall. Failure to comply with the Agreement results in the forfeiture of seniority.

 The Organization argues that Claimant had been notified of his displacement on June 23, 1986, an Safety and Rules. As Claimant had just returned to light duty work he had the impression that he would remain working until his leg healed. Given a critical language problem, the letter of recall or apply for a medical leave of absence. It is the Organization's position that Cla all rights and lost wages.
 Form 1 Award No. 28290
 Page 2 Docket No. MW-28193
 90-3-87-3-777

 On merits, the record as exchanged on property does not support the Organization's position. First, the Carrier has provided ample evidence that Claimant understood the Agreement. There is no denial in the record that Claimant had many times complied with Rule 21 of the Agreement and understood his obligations when he was displaced by a senior employee. The record substantiates that Claimant w the record indicates that Claimant's language problems were not sufficient to explain his behavior. Carrier's letter of January 12, 1987, contains assertions from the Cheyenne Di difficulty understanding what was occurring and what he needed to do to protect his seniority. Such
Considering the above, the Board concludes that Claimant had sufficient past knowledge and under obligations. We also conclude that there is insufficient probative evidence to support the conclusion that language played a significant role in Claimant's failure to protect h Agreement resulted in his loss of seniority (Third Division Awards 26059, 25158, 25519).




                          By Order of Third Division


Attest:
        Nancy J. r - Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 28th day of February 1990.