Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
Award No. 35724
Docket No. MW-34795
01-3-98-3-503

The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee Robert L. Douglas when award was rendered.

(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE:


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 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.


Form 1 Award No. 35724
Page 2 Docket No. MW-34795
01-3-98-3-503

The record reflects that the Claimant had been furloughed and, after approximately ten months, he bid on an Assistant Foreman position on August 1, 1996 in a different seniority district. The Carrier awarded the Claimant the position effective August 7; 1996. The Claimant failed to report for the Assistant Foreman position. In a letter dated August 30, 1996, the Carrier informed the Claimant that:









A review of the record indicates that the Carrier did not violate the Agreement. In particular, the Claimant failed to take the necessary steps to determine whether the Carrier had awarded the Claimant the position of Assistant Foreman for which the Claimant had submitted a bid. The Claimant had an affirmative obligation to make suitable and effective arrangements to monitor the awarding of the Assistant Foreman position. The Claimant failed to do so. The record does not contain any extraordinary, remarkable, or unusual circumstances that eliminated, excused, or relieved the Claimant of the responsibility to be available to accept the successful bid or, at minimum, to notify

Form 1 Award No. 35724
Page 3 Docket No. MW-34795
01-3-98-3-503

the Carrier of any intervening difficulty that may have precluded the Claimant from reporting to work in a timely manner. By failing to do so, the Claimant assumed the risk that the Carrier would apply Rule 28. This case does not involve a traditional return to work from furlough situation and therefore the notification requirement set forth in Rule 4, Section 3 lacks relevance. Under these circumstances, no basis exists to disturb, overturn, or reverse the actions of the Carrier in applying the provisions of Rule 28. See Third Division Awards 25648 and 31788.








This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that an Award favorable to the Claimant(s) not be made.


                        NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD By Order of Third Division


                        Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 24th day of October, 2001.