F:-.R :'IE~ ) BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTLNF,NCE CF W -Y EMPLOYES
 TO ) and
 DISPUTE ) BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD COMPANY
 STATEMENT
 OF CLAIPI: 1. Claim of the System Committee of the Broth-
 hood of Maintenance of V,aj Employes in be
 half of Mr. M. A. Hrandcn because of the
 Carrier's violation of the current Agreement
 when it erroneously removed his name from
 the seniority roster.
 2. The Carrier will now be required to restore
 Ciairnant's name to the raster and corr~.ensate -
 him for all wacre-loss suffered as a resu_'t -
 of the above referred to viclation.
 FINDINGS: By reason of the Memorandumef Agreement si;ned
 November 16, 1979, and upon the whole record and -
 all the evidence, the Board finds that the parties herein are emploae
 and Carrier within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as amended,
 that the Board has jurisdiction of the subject-matter, and that the
 Farzies were given due notice of the hearing held.

 nn September 20, 1985, the Carrier recalled Claimant M. A. Brandon to service, stating:

        "This is to advise you that you are hereby recalled to tnc service of the Burlington Northern railroad Company ; and

          ·ou are to report to Regional Tie Gang t\e-. 3 on Septear:ber

          ;'0, 1985 at 8:00 A.M. to work as a Track Laborer. This -

        gang will be working between Channing and Texlire, ?exes.

        You should call Roadmastera. 0. Little at Amarillo, Texas:

        to find out exact location where cork will bec,in.


        Failure to revert within 15 calcncr.r cabs after receiving this notice will result in your loss cf seniority."

                                      AWARD PLO. 37 (p. 2) CASE n0. 4G


On September 23, 1905, the above lctter was delivered t·.;Claimant.

 Claimant alleges that on October 3, 1385 he sent the following lctter to the Car Tier:

          "October 3, 1985 -


          Melvin A. Brandon

          2703 Broadmoor

          Wichita Falls, Texas 76305


          Mr. R. G. Strong

          P. O. Box 943

          Ft. Worth, Texas 76101


          Dear Mr. Strong:


        At the- present time I can not afford to travel 400 mile::to work, duc to the period of the last lay-off. My finances can not afford the trip.


        I would like to request a leave, of absence or an assiqnmert closer to the Wichita Falls area.


        lour consideration in this matter would be cxreatly appxcciated.


        ,Sincerely,


        Melvin A. Brandon"


The Carrier, on October 10, 1985, sent the followinc_ lettE-r to Claimant:

        "Referring to your recall to service for fieptemUer 30, 1985 to Regional Tie Gang #3 to work between Charninq and Texline, Texas.


        Pule 14 of Aqreement between Fort Worth & Denver Rails:av Company and Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employee;. effective August 1, 1971 provides employees off in force reduction shall be notified when forces are to be increase-d. Employee must report for service within 15 calendar dais from date notice of recall is received or forfeit --enieri°ty in class which recalled:

                                  ~~/3 asaq

                                  AWARD N0.37 (p. 3)

                                  CASE N0. 46


        Therefore, accordinq to rule 14 and the self executing Frovisicns contained thercin, alonq with your failure to report to service as reque<ted, you a=--c hereby notified that you are being removed .fr:.:,: t.,~Trackmen Seniority foster.


          Sincerely,


          P. G. Strong Asst. Supt. Roadway Maintenance"


On May 19, 1986, the Carrier denied the instant claim, stating in part:

 "This refers to your letter of March 31, 1986, file P-47-85, about claim of Trackman M. A. Brandon, alleging Carrier removed his name from the trackman 's seniority roster per letter of October 16, - 1 5

 Claimant L,iled to respond to recall of September 20, 1985, received by claimant on Septemher 23, 19P5 via certified mail. Ciainant's seniority was properly terminated in line a:irh Pule 14. ycur contention that claimant on some unknown date alieged1_* requesteda °leave of absence in writing, and that such request was not responded to by Carrier, therefore, claimant concluded he had been granted a leave is totally irrational. Carrier denies receiving such reuuest.

 It is your burden to prove all the essential elements of __ your claim, and you have offered nothing but allegations. Claimant did not comply with Rule 14 nor did he obtain proFer authorization for leave of absence under Rule 3Q(c). Claimant must bear the respon= sibility of his inaction."****

          Rule 14-RECALL TO SERVICE provides:


        "When forces are increased, or vacancies occur, employes who have been cut off in force reduction or forced to cisplace in a lower class, shall be recalled to service in the order of their seniority.


        off in force reduction employes shall be notified of their recall to service by personal contact or in writing at their last address of record and must report for service within fifteen (15) calendar days from the date notice of _ recall is received.

                                    0~ r~ aSaS


                                  AWARD NO- 3'7 (p. 4 )

                                  CASE NO. 46


        Employes failing to respond to recall to service under the provisions of this rule shall forfeit their senicrity in the class to whical recalled.


        Positions may be filled temporarily pending the return to service of a recalled employe by the nearest qualified employe holding seniority-rights-in the class available without delay to the work."


It is undisputed that Claimant failed to respond to recall to service letter of September 20, 1985 received by him on September 23, 1985. The Carrier denies--receiving Claimant's alleged letter _ dated October 3, 1985. Claimant offers no evidence of communicationattempts or follow-up to his alleged letter dated October 3, 1985. In the circumstances of this particular case, the evidence of recordconsidered in its entirety does not support a determination that Claimant complied with the provisions of Rule 14.

                    A W A R D


          1. The Carrier is not in violation of the Aqreement.


          2. The claim is denied.


              47 C

          JOSEPDk LAAZA'R, CHAIRMAN AND NEUTRAL MEMBER -


°.---
C. F. FOOSE, EMPLOYE MEMBER L. MF.RES, CARRIIR MEMBER

              ~' i


DATED: '~'~J