Case No. 98


PARTIES Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees
 TO and
 DISPUTE Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company
 STATEMENT "Claim on behalf of former Fuel Laborer Jack Dunham, Albuquerque
 OF CLAIM Division, for reinstatement with seniority,-vacation, -all other
 basic benefits restored and compensation for all wage loss arid/
 or otherwise made whole beginning March 22, 1982."
 FINDINGS
Upon the whole record, after hearing, the Board finds that the parties herein are Carrier and Employees within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as amended, and that this Board is duly constituted under Public Law 89-456 and has jurisdiction of the parties and the subject matter.

 Claimant herein had been on layoff. The record indicates that on or about March 1, 1982, claimant was verbally notified that he was being recalled to service. In addition, by letter dated March 1 (mailed on March 2) this fact was verified in writing. The same letter was sent to the claimant's last known address by certified mail on approximately March 3.

 Rule 2(c) of the Agreement provides in part as follows:

            " ....failure to re-port on the date indicated in the notification of recall, not to exceed fifteen (15) cal,nsar days from date of notification of recall, forwarded to the employee's last known address, without a satisfactory reason, will result in forfeiture of seniority in the class where recalled."


The record indicates that claimant did not report to work Ly ?larch lu, 1982, nor thereafter. As a result of this action, Carrier notiFierl claimant that he was absent without authority and was being terminated. Following an investigation, Carrier's decision to terminate claimant was reaffirmed.

 There is no question but that claimant received a notification ver>>a11y on March
 (o3-a7?y

 1 that he was being recalled to work. This was confirmed in writing and, oven though claimant indicates that he did not receive the certified copy of the letter until approximately March 16, there is no question that lie was adequately notified both verbally and in writing of his recall. The record of the investigation in this matter reveals no mitigating circumstances which would require consideration in terms of claimant's failure to report for work as requested in the recall. The late receipt of the certified letter is far from adequate to explain claimant's failure to report in view of his acknowledged information concerning the recall on March 1. The claim must be denied.

 AWARD
G., C rier Member

 Chicago, Illinois
 December 7 , 1983

 Claim denied.

 I. M. Lieberman, Neutral-Chairman

 ig. F. Foose, Employee Member