Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
 TIII.RD DIVISION
 Award No. 37853
 Docket No. MW-36912
 06-3-01-3467

 The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee Joan Parker 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.
 r, .. .. _
 r Ur 111 t Award 1VO. 3 7893
 Page 2 Docket No. NM-36912

This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.


      Parties to said disnute were given due notice of hearing thereon-


The instant dispute arose in June 2000, when a Track Arc Welder position in Spokane, Washington, was vacated by T. J. Blaylock, who had bid on and been

elected C T 1. Inspector _. sia__nTh n______·_~ _~_.___an__~ ~>__ __t__ _
 pselected 1u~ Q 110.\.11 been
 Inspector t11131UV11. the Carltcr auveruseu the newly vacant
 Spokane Track Arc Welder position by bulletin, but received no bids for the
 position. The Claimant at the time was working as a Welder Helper in
 Cascadelocks, Oregon. He held seniority as a Track Arc Welder on the Oregon
 Division dating from February 2, 2000, and as such was the junior qualified
 employee of the class, regularly assigned in the lower classification of Welder
 Helper. There were no employees in the Track Arc Welder class on furlough. The
 Carrier therefore force recalled the Claimant to the Spokane Track Arc Welder
 position under Rule 20(e)(3) of the parties' Agreement.

After being notified of his recall by letter, the Claimant contacted NPS C'nnrialis* C f= Nnva~ nn fn". 10 "9nfin an *oll h;.., hh~a ho . ,.1.7 ....* - ..s al._

aY » ..... .... ..... _ .... a»rr ai, ~vvv, v sa.aa r.aaaa .rang ua. va'VUr~ tiM1. 4cceF11. iVG
 Spokane position. According to the Carrier, the result of the Claimant's refusal of
 the position was the forfeiture of his seniority in the Track Arc Welder Class, under
 Rule 23. The Organization submitted a claim on the Claimant's behalf on June 30,
 2000 (subsequently corrected on July 25) which the Carrier denied. Having failed to
 reach a satisfactory resolution of the issues on the property, the parties submitted
 the dispute to the Board for final and binding resolution.

      Rule 20 of the parties' Agreement provides, in pertinent part:


      "(e) When no bids are received from employees retaining seniority

        in the l`laee the vanannv nr nnxy

        nnei~inn xxri~ ~snlln~l r'xa 41,n ___ ____ __~ ~, ...~. . _.._. .., V r rr.... Y.rvr..rV» ,.rar ,sx. aaaax,aa aaa saaG following order:


      (1) In accordance with the provisions of Rule 19(b);

        (2) The junior unassigned qualified employee of the class, who is furloughed;

Fnrm 1 Award Nn- 1795_1

 Page 3' Docket No. MW-36912
 06-3-01-3-467

                                              ,,

          (3") The junior qualified employee of the class, who is regularly assigned in a lower class; . . ."


      Rule 23 provides:


          "(e) Employees regularly assigned to a lower class who are recalled to a higher seniority class must return to such higher class at the first opportunity or forfeit seniority therein . . . ."


The Organization asserts that the Carrier improperly force recalled the
 Claimant to the Spokane Track Arc Welder position, because Blaylock was
      ___1_. _..1..._L...7 f..~ __7 ~..A a.. LL.. T»....1. %»..»....L..» ..:4:..» Tug

llllpl-Uf1Crly JCIGLLGU lux auu aJJig11CU LV tllc 11a1:11 111JpG~LVl poDILIVU. lu

Organization argues that under Rules 15 (Establishment of Seniority) 19 (Promotion) and 20 (Bulletining Positions - Vacancies) another applicant, R. L Garhart, should have been assigned to the Track Inspector position. According to the Organization, if the Carrier had not improperly assigned Blaylock to the Track Inspector position, the Spokane Track Arc Welder position would not have been vacated, the Claimant would not have been force recalled to the position, and he would not have had to forfeit his seniority.


The Organization admits that a separate claim on behalf of Garhart has been riled, in which it is asserted that Garhart rather than Blaylock should have been

    .,*n.1 *n +ha Trarlr 1nennntnr nnei*inn Rnth nartine tlnrina fhA hantilino of *hie


matter on the property, and in their Submissions to the Board, devoted significant effort to presenting argument and evidence regarding the issue of whether Blaylock or Garhart should have been assigned to the Track Inspector position. The Board finds, however, that the issue of whether the Carrier acted appropriately with regard to Garhart is not properly before the Board in the instant case. If, as the Organization asserts, a violation of the parties' Agreement occurred with respect to Garhart, that will be resolved and remedied in the case in which Garhart is the Claimant. The Organization cannot piggyback the instant matter onto Garhart's claim. See First Division Award 23805. Claimant Kavanaugh, and the Carrier's actions toward him, are the subject of the instant claim. To prevail, therefore, the nroani7atinn muct denlnnctrate that the Carrier vinlated the nartiec' A¢reement in

_..b...______..__ _______ _______________ ______ ____ ________ ______. __ __e ___
 its conduct toward the Claimant. This, the Organization failed to do.
 T, na.a_ ,
 ~____ _ Award No. 377553
 Page 4 Docket No. MW-36912
 06-3-01-3-467

It is undisputed that the Claimant was the junior qualified employee in the

class, that no qualified employees were furloughed at the time the Spokane,

Washington, Track Arc Welder position became vacant, and that the Claimant's

regular assignment as Welder Helper was in a lower claccificati_nn_ 11ndPr the r_lpnr

language of Rule 20(e) it was proper for the Carrier to recall the Claimant to the

Spokane position. Regardless of the reason the Spokane position was vacant, no

evidence in the instant record supports a finding that the Carrier's recall of the


/'l.~ernonf a>inlo*n~l T)nln 9n / .... ..a7 ..._. T_,7_). 7=. ____ nd_·_pute d .a
 .... » ==a .av=uwa= rau=a, vv w= any Vi.llcl X%Ule). it is also undisputed that the
 Claimant notified Novak that he would not accept the Spokane position. Rule 23 is
 unambiguous about the consequences of an employee's refusal to accept a higher
 class position: the forfeiture of seniority in the higher class. The Board, therefore,
 finds that the Carrier's actions with regard to the Claimant were taken in
 compliance with the applicable Agreement Rules.

Having found that the Organization failed to prove any violation of the Agreement in the instant case, the Board must deny the claim.


                          AWATan


      Claim denied.


                          ORDER


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

                      Rv nrrlpr nff Third Divicinn


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this Ist day of August 2006.