PARTIES Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
 TO
 DISPUTE The Atchison, Topeka arid Santa Fe Railway Company
 STAT:NT
 OF CLAM". "Claim that former Illinois Division Trackman
 L. ri. Jennings be reinstated to service with
 seniority, vacation, all benefit rights unimpaired
 and paid for wage loss and/or otherwise made whole,
 ,account the claimant's name being improperly re
 moved from the seniority,roster for failure to
 file his address after being force reduced."
 FINDINGS upon the whole record, the aoard finds that the parties
 herein are Carrier and Employes within `he meaning of the Aailway
 Labor Act,- as amended, and that this Hoard is duly constituted under
 Public Lav 89-456 and has jurisdiction of the parties and the
 subject matter.
 The Claimant was furloughed November 27, 1981. The issue now before this Board involves the Claimant's alleged failure to file his address at the time of his furlough in accordance with the provisions of Rule 2, Section (c), which reads, in part, as follows,

              "Employes laid off in force reduction shall retain their seniority provided they (1) file their address in writing within fifteen (15) calendar days after being displaced; and (2) promptly report in writing any subsequent changes in their address. The reporting required herein must be addressed to the Division Engineer."


The Organisation maintains that Claimant filed his address in accordance ribs the provision of Rule 2, Section (c), on December 4, 1981, which was within the prescribed time limit.
                                      Award No. 13 - 3308 Page No. 2


The Carrier contends that the notice dated -oecenibex 4, 1981, was never rectived, therefore, Claimant did not file his address as required within fifteen (1S) calendar days as required and since the rule is self-executing, the Ciair,ant automatically lost his seniority.
 Throughout the investigation of this claim on the property the issue remained in disputel i.e., whether or not Claimant actually filer! his address as required.
 Thus, there are disputed facts c:-hich were not resolved bv- evidence developed on the property, and which this Board is, therefore, unable to resolve. Numerous awards of various Divisions of the National Railroad adjustrent Board have consistently held that when such .conflicts in eviaence arise in essential aspects of a claim, there is no alternative but to dismiss the claim. Accordingly, since we cannot properly decide the merits of this claim without resolving the issue, we have no choice but to dismiss the claim.

 A`..~RD Claim dismissed.

                                    Clarence Ft. tier i:.. on

                                    Neutral "-ember


      r er Mdmi or rganizat_on P:em er


Dated at Chicago, Illinois March 1, 1983