The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that:

The carrier or carriers and the employee or employees involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employee 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.

The issue to be decided in this case is whether Claimant, as a furloughed employee, was subject to consideration as an automatic bidder under Rule 2-A-1(d) of the parties' Agreement when a position he formerly occupied was vacated by the senior employee who had displaced him from the job, when the ensuing vacancy was advertised in Bulletin No. 15-65, dated November 14, 1990. Rule 2A-1(d) reads as follows:

"(d) Awards will be made within ten (l0) calendar days after the close of the advertisement period to the senior bidder in the class. If there are no bids from employees who possess seniority in the class, Rule 3-B-2 will govern. Assignment to the position will be made within ten (10) calendar days following the date the position is awarded. Notice of awards will be posted at the headquarters involved. A furloughed employee will be considered as having bid for any position or vacancy not requiring a change in residence. If he is the senior bidder in the class, the position will be awarded to him. If such employee fails to report for the position, within ten (10) calendar days, he shall forfeit his seniority in that class and all higher classes, unless such position is expected to be of less than ninety (90) calendar days duration.

If a Maintainer or Signalman position cannot be filled under the preceding paragraph it shall be filled by a qualified Trainee, Assistant Maintainer or Assistant Signalman.

NOTE: The following definition of "change

in residence" in Section 501(9) of

the RRR Act is applicable:

"change in residence" means transfer

to a work location which is located

either (A) outside a radius of 30

miles of the employee's former work

location and farther from his

residence than was his former work

location or (B) is located more than

30 normal highway route miles from

his residence and also farther from

his residence than was his former

work location."

"This refers to our discussion of July 11, 1989, regarding the determination of `work location' and `residence' in applying change of residence under the NOTE to Rule 2-A-1.

Based on the provisions of the February 10, 1976 Implementing Agreement and the Single Collective Bargaining Agreement of September 1, 1981, for employees hired on or before April 1, 1976, the work location and residence as of April 1, 1976, applies. For employees hired after April 1, 1976, the work location and residence as of such hire date applies."

Claimant lived and worked in Wooster, Ohio, prior to April 1, 1976. Thus, under the parties' agreed to definition, Wooster was the employee's "work location" and it was also his "residence" for purposes of Rule 2-A-1(d). The vacancy that was posted in Bulletin No. 15-65 was in East Palestine, Ohio. East Palestine and Wooster are in excess of thirty miles apart. Accordingly, Claimant could not, by the literal reading of the Rule, be considered as having bid on the position covered by Bulletin No. 15-65, because in his case it was not one "not requiring a change in residence."

The organization stressed that Claimant had worked the job and had been displaced by the incumbent who left causing Bulletin No. 15-65 to be issued. Study of the Agreement discloses no language covering this contingency. Instead, the language is specific as to what existing conditions generate an automatic bid by a furloughed employee. It is these conditions that are relevant and important, and not the work history, or the last job occupied by a furloughed employee, that dictate the correct application of the Rule.

The Claim will be denied because of lack of Rule support.

AWARD