CASE NO. 39


PARTIES ) BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYES
 TO ) AND
 DISPUTE ) BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD (Former Fort Worth
 & Denver Railway Company _
 STATEMENT 1. The Carrier violated the Agreement when it
 OF CLAIM: refused to retain Senior Trackman Mr. G. L.
 Tucker, instead retained twelve (12) junior
 trackmen and failed to properly inform Claimant
 2. The Carrier will now be required to reimburse
 Claimant for all wage loss suffered commencing
 December 7, 1984 and continuing through Febru
 ary 5, 1985 when he was recalled to Tie Gang
 No. 3.
 FINDINGS: By reason of the Memorandum of Agreement signed
 November 16, 1979, and upon the whole record and
 all the evidence, the Board finds that the parties herein are
 employe and Carrier within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act,
 as amended, and that it has jurisdiction over the parties and the
 subject-matter.

 Claimant G. L. Tucker has been an employee of the Carrie since July 27, 1981, and he was employed as a Trackman working at Saginaw, Texas in the vicinity of Fort Worth, Texas. On December 7 1984, Claimant was cut off in force reduction. Claimant then sough to exercise his displacement rights. In his efforts to do so, acco ing to Claimant, he was informed that there were no employees junio in seniority whom he could displace. The Roadmaster's Clerk states that "I remember speaking with Mr. Tucker in regards to where he could place himself. I advised him that there were no men younger in seniority working under the jurisdiction of Roadmaster Van Matre at that time and for him to contact Mr. R. G. Strong's office for information as to where he could place himself on other territories (Carrier's Ex. No. 7). It is not clear from this record whether C1 ant was misinformed or whether Claimant misunderstood what he was t
                                                    f


                                        AWARD NO. 30

                                        CASE NO. 39 -


At any rate, there is no question about the fact that on December 17, Claimant "was told by Mr. Ernie Wilson to report (to the Childress Track Gang No. 3 at Thorne) on December 17."_ (Employes' Ex. No. A-5). The record shows that Claimant "did talk to E. A. Wilson on December 17, 1984 and was told that he must plathimself that date or it would bee too late. He did not report the 17th but instead waited until the morning of the 19th to place him self. Roadmaster on Regional tie gang allowed him to bump into his gang before realizing he had not complied with Rule 13(b). This was brought to his attention because complaints by employees on th^ gang effect by Mr. Tucker being allowed to displace into the gang. When roadmaster realized his error he then advised Mr. Tucker that due to his not complying with Rule 13 (b) he was not going to allow his displacement.

 Rule 13 (b) provides, in pertinent part: "All displacements must be made within ten (10) calendar days from the date the employe loses his position...". The record is clear that Claimant did not attempt to place his bump on a junion employee in Extra Gagn No. 3 at Childress, Texas until the morning of December 19, 1S twelve (12) days after Claimant was cut off in force reduction on December 7, 1984, at Saginaw, Texas. (Employes' Exhibits Nos. A-4 and A-11). Under the circumstances, his attempt to displace was nc "within ten (10) calendar days from the date the employe loseshis position." The record is silent concerning any reason for Claimant waiting from December 17 until December 19 to make displacement.

                      A W A R D


              1. The Carrier is not in violation of the Agreement


              2. The claim is denied.


            ~38 EPH LAZAR, CHAIRMAN AND NEUTRAL MEMBER


C. F. FOOSE, EMPLOYE MEMBER L. MARES, CARRIER MEMBER

 DATED: ~~- -3 C~ -