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.
The Claimant was hired on District 500 in July 2005, was furloughed in September and recalled in October, only to be displaced and once again placed into a furloughed status a few days later. In the interim, the Claimant changed residence and with the assistance of a fellow employee, he obtained, completed, and sent a change of address form (PCI Form) to the Carrier in October 2005 by regular U.S. mail. He never contacted the Carrier to verify that the form had been received. When the Claimant subsequently attempted to contact the Carrier's automated information system during January 2006, he was informed that his employee identification number was invalid and was denied access. The Claimant contacted the Carrier's manpower office and learned that his name had been removed from the seniority roster for failing to report within ten days following an October 28, 2005 recall notice that had been mailed to his former address. In fact, the recall notice, sent by certified mail, had been returned to the Carrier unclaimed. The Claimant mailed a letter to the Carrier's manpower office on January 16, 2006 explaining the circumstances, and subsequently contacted the Organization, which filed a claim on his behalf on February 1, 2006.
The Carrier denied the claim in part on the ground that it was not filed within the time specified by Rule 42. Rule 42A states that all claims or grievances must be presented in writing "within sixty (60) days from the date of the occurrence on which the claim or grievance is based." The time for filing a claim began on November 10, 2005, when the Claimant was removed from the seniority roster for failing to respond to the recall notice, the Carrier contends. The Organization asserts that the time for filing did not begin to run until January 2006, when the Claimant first became aware of the October 28 recall notice and his removal from the seniority roster, and notes that the Carrier was aware of the dispute as soon as the Manpower Office received the Claimant's January 16, 2006 letter requesting assistance with his situation. Form I Award No. 39381
After careful consideration of the circumstances presented, the Board concludes, with great reluctance, that the claim was not timely filed and must be dismissed. The occurrence on which the claim is based is the removal from the seniority roster, and that took place on November 10, 2005. In fact, as discussed heiow, the Claimant could have discovered the problem long before January 2006, because he had no acknowledgement that his change of address form had been received. Nothing in Rule 42A extends the time for filing until the date an employee learns of the occurrence on with the claim is based, and the Organization cited no decisions giving the Board the authority to read that extension into the Rule.
Even if the claim were timely, we would be unable to sustain it. In essence, it is a plea for leniency. Rule 9 is very clear:
Thus, an employee is responsible for providing written notice of a change of address, and the Carrier is responsible for providing written acknowledgement of receipt of the notice. Only employees "who have complied with this rule" will be called back to service. The purpose of these mutual responsibilities is to prevent just the type of miscommunication that allegedly occurred here, and to relieve the parties from myriad squabbles over who bears responsibility when a recall notice fails to reach an employee.
We accept ar2uendo the Claimant's statement that he sent in a change of address form, because it was corroborated in part by a co-worker who said he helped the Claimant get the form. However, there is no evidence whatsoever that the Form I Award No. 39381
Claimant received written acknowledgement from the Carrier that the form had been received. He therefore had reason to know long before January 2006 that there might be a problem. While the Board recognizes that the Claimant, as a new employee, may have been unfamiliar with these procedures, his failure to be diligent in protecting his recall rights under Rule 9 is not a "satisfactory reason" that excuses his failure to return to service in response to the October 28, 2005 recall. Under the circumstances, the Carrier cannot be charged with a violation of Rule 9. While we might agree that these circumstance warrant leniency, we cannot impose that decision on management and would have to deny the claim on its merits even if it were timely.
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that an Award favorable to the Claimant(s) not be made.