The Third Division consisted of the regular members and _.. addition Referee Elizabeth C. Wesman when award was rendered.
The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whc_= 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 ==e 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 hear:-g thereon.
At the outset, the Carrier has raised objections concern-=g new material offered by the Organization in its submission to t_:e Board. Such material will not be considered by the Board in :=s deliberations. Form 1 Award No. 31253
This case concerns the removal of the Claimant's name and seniority dates from ~_oup 8 classes (a) and (b) of the Oregon Division Seniority District 7008 Seniority Roster. In March, 1991, Claimant wrote to the Carrier to protest the Carrier's 1991 seniority roster. Under date of May 3, 1991, Claimant was notified that his protest was without merit, because he had failed to protect a force assignment in October of 1990. The Organization filed a claim on behalf of Claimant. That claim was denied and subsequently processed up to and including the highest Carrier officer authorized to handle such matters.
At issue is interpretation of Rule 22 (c) of the Agreement between the Parties. Rule 22(c) reads as follows:
It is the position of the Carrier that Claimant was notified of a higher rated bulletined position in October 1990, and that he failed to return to that position, when required to do so. The Organization, on the other hand, asserts that Claimant was never properly notified of the available position. Accordingly, his alleged failure to protect the position is a result of Carrier's failure to notify him formally of his recall to service.
Although the record before the Board is somewhat muddied, it is apparent that Claimant was not formally notified of the October 1990 position. Moreover, it is unrefuted that previously Carrier had provided Claimant with formal notification of recall, but for reasons not apparent on this record, elected to change the usual procedure. Under the circumstances, Carrier is at least equally culpable for Claimant's failure to protect the forced recall. See Second Division Award 11263. Accordingly, the instant Claim is sustained.
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that an award favorable to the Claimant(s) be made. The Carrier is ordered to make the Award effective on or before 30 days following the postmark date the Award is transmitted to the parties.