Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 29483
 THIRD DIVISION Docket mo.MW-29408
 93-3-90-3-342
 The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Barry E. Simon when award was rendered.

 (Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (CSX Transportation, Inc.(former Chesapeake 6 (Ohio Railroad Company)

 STATEMENT OF CLAIM:











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.

 On April 21, 1989, Claimant was notified by telephone of a permanent trackman vacancy on the Huntington Division Seniority District at Peach Creek, West Virginia. At the time, Claimant was the senior employee on that roster who was furloughed, and not working. Four senior employes, also had been furloughed, had earlier accepted employment at the Barboursville Reclamation Plant, which is a different seniority district.
 Form 1
 Page 2

 Award No. 29483
 Docket No. MW-29408
 93-3-90-3-342

 According to Claimant, he explained to the Roadmaster that Peach Creek was ninety miles from his home, and asked if he could call someone closer. Claimant states that the Roadmaster told him this would not be a problem.

 By letter dated April 26, 1989, Claimant was informed his name had been removed from the seniority roster in accordance with Rule 5 of the Agreement, due to his failure to report for the Peach Creek vacancy. Rule 5 of the Agreement reads, in pertinent part, as follows:

 "(c) When permanen filled by employees will be recalled to

 their seniority.

 ten days after or injury, and seniority. Whe perform tempora Manager-Enginee officer in writ

 or extra work to seniority,

 time the work a the senior man

 men must respond seniority simila

 t vacancies or new positions are not already in the service, cut-off men fill such positions in accordance with

 The senior cut-off man must return within

 being notified, unless prevented by sickness fill the permanent position or forfeit all re cut-off employees desire to be used to ry or extra work, they will notify the ring or other corresponding supervisory ing accordingly. Men requesting temporary

 which may arise, will be recalled according but if the senior man is not available at the

 rises, any man available may be used until is available. For laborer positions only

 for thirty days' work or more or forfeit r to the provisions of Rule 2(i)."

 By Letter of Agreement dated April 12, 1984, effective

 May 1, 1984, the above

 "2. Rules 2(i

 requirement t

 an employee m being notifie certified mail

 provision was amended as follows:

 u

 d

 and 5 are revised with respect to the

 o report following recall to the extent that st report for work within five (5) days after

 by telephone or receipt of notice by sent to the last address on file."

 The first issue raised by the Organization is that Claimant was not the appropriate employee to be called. According to the Organization, Carrier should have first called the four senior men who were working at Barboursville. It argues they should be considered cut-off, as they were unable to work within their own seniority district. Carrier, on the other hand, insists these employees were in service, even though it was on a different seniority district.
 Form 1 Award No. 29483
 Page 3 Docket No. MW-29408
 93-3-90-3-342

 Neither party has given the Board any indication of past practice regarding the interpretation of the Rule, which is somewhat ambiguous as to whether the term "cut-off" refers to employees who are unable to work on their own seniority district, but take work on another district, or only to employees who are not working at all. The Board can only surmise that Carrier's interest would be in forcing employees to return to work only if they are not already working. The other employees, such as the four men senior to Claimant, could have exercised their seniority by bidding, as they were already in service. Accordingly, we accept Carrier's interpretation and find Claimant was not called out of turn.

 Carrier does not refute Claimant's description of his conversation with the Roadmaster. It relies, instead, upon the Rule mandating forfeiture of seniority when an employee does not report within five days. We agree this is what the Rule requires. Claimant was notified, in proper seniority order, to report and he failed to do so. The Rule should require Carrier to remove his name from the roster. However, the evidence strongly leads to the conclusion Claimant was assured he could refuse the job without suffering such an adverse consequence. The Rule does not give the Roadmaster authority to excuse an employee in this manner. His obligation was to direct Claimant to report for the assignment or face the penalty of removal from the roster. Because he did not do this, we will not subject Claimant to the penalty. We will not, however, permit Claimant to be rewarded as a result of the accommodation which was afforded him by the Roadmaster. Accordingly, we direct that Claimant's seniority be restored, but without compensation for time lost.




                            By Order of Third Division


Attest:
          ancy J. r - Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 21st day of January 1993.