Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 29042
 THIRD DIVISION Docket No. MW-28869
 91-3-89-3-262
 The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Herbert L. Marx, Jr. 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 Agreement was violated when the Carrier failed to correctly inform Mr. D. Koshko concerning his displacement rights and thereby prevented him from exercising his seniority beginning January 5, 1988 (System Docket CR-3821).

 (2) As a consequence of the aforesaid violation, Mr. D. Koshko shall be compensated for all straight time and overtime wage loss suffered beginning January 5, 1988 and continuing until the violation is corrected."

 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.

The Claimant was notified that his position as Foreman was abolished as of the end of his tour of duty on December 30, 1987. Five days later, on January 4, 1988, he inquired of the Assignment Clerk as to available positions on which he could make a displacement. He was advised that the computer was inoperative, and assistance could not be provided. He again inquired on January 5 and 6 and received the same response.

 On January 15, 1988, the Claimant learned of positions held by junior employees on which he could make a displacement. He did not attempt to make such displacement until January 25, at which time such displacement was refused by the Carrier. The the Claimant had exceeded the ten-day period for exercising seniority as provided in Rule 4, Section Form 1 Award No. 29042
 Page 2 Docket No. MW-28869
 91-3-89-3-262
 "(b) An employee entitled to exercise seniority
 must exercise seniority within ten (10) days after
 the date affected. Failure to exercise seniority to
 any position not requiring a change in residence
 shall result in forfeiture of all seniority under
 this Agreement. If he presents evidence to his
 supervisor that extenuating circumstances prevented
 the exercise of seniority, the ten (10) days speci
 fied above shall be extended proportionately to the
 extent of his absence on account of such circum
 stances. An employee who is unable to so exercise
 seniority and who elects not to exercise other
 seniority, shall be furloughed."

 The Organization contends that the displacement on January 25, 1988, should have been permitted in view of the "extenuating circumstances" involved in the Carrier's failure to be of assistance when requested on January 4-6. The Carrier responds that the responsibility of the Claimant, previously experienced in such matters, was to make greater efforts at placing himself beyond calls to the Assignment Clerk.

 It wasn't until January 15, 1988, that Claimant learned of an employee he could displace, but th to displace because of the ten day time lapse which starts to run the day his job was abolished. The "extenuating circumstances" clause in the Agreement does not entail lack of action in behalf of the employee, however, it may have protected Claimant's right to displace had he done so on January 15, the day he located the junior employee. Under the circumstances, in this dispute, and restricted only to the facts contained in the record before this Board, Claimant is to be paid for a The Claim for additional compensation denied due to Claimant's reticence in displacing following the date he knew where and whom he could displace.




                          By Order of Third Division


Attest:
                  .Nancy J. r -Executive Sec etary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 22nd day of November 1991.