P4.tTIE.S brotherhood of maintenance of way Zmployes
 ZV
 DISPUTE The ntC:Ason, lopeka auo aaiaa Fe ::ailxay Company
 3TATM'Aa ».T
 OF CLAD-1 "Claim for reinstatement of former Trackman
 M, ~i, Carrington, -:iddlsa: ·Avision, 'with his
 correct seniority, vacation, all other benefit
 rights unimpaired and compensated for ail wage
 loss and/or otherwise made whole beginning
 may 10, 1982.' account the claimant's name
 being improperly removed from the seniority
 roster for failure to respond to recall."
 FINDINGS Upon the whole record, the Board finds that the
 patties herein are Carrier and Empioyes within the meaning of the
 Railway Labor Act. as amended, and that t:ds ?card is duly consti·
 tutad under Public Law 83-·156 and has jurisdiction of the parties
 and the subject matter.
 'the Claimant was a furloughed employe subject to recall to service. In a letter dated April 23, 1982, Claimant was recalled to service, effective May 10, 1982, re was also inatructed to contact the Carrier on either May 6 or :-~x;r 7, 1902 for his assignment, On May 9, 1982, Claimant contacted the 'Carrier and advised he could not report on hay 10, 1982. "'he ~2arrt ·r rave him permission not to report on May 10, 1982, but he was expected to report on may 11, 1982. Claimant did not respond to recw.l j,. :=a* 11, 1982 as disaatede In a letter dated :ay 12, 1982,, Carrier advised Claimant that his name was being rurseved from the seniority roster 171 aCC.-rdance with the provision- (^jl ::4'.C: .:~ ::~''"'n7? (c; ^Che Agreement,

      The pertinent part of Rule 2, section (c) reads as followsc


          mxo= failure to report on the date indicated in the notification of recall, not to exceed fifteen (15) calendar days from date of notification of recall forwarded to the employe's last known address, without a satisfactory reason, will result in forfeiture of seniority in the class where recalled."

The organization contends that Claimant was discharged without the benefit of a formal investigation in violation of Rule 13DISCIPLINE-
 Rule 2, Section (c) is self -execu ting and provides that failure to respond in timely fashion results in an employe being considered resigned. our conclusion that the rule is self-executing and provides for an automatic loss of seniority is consistent with numerous awards of various Divisions of the National Railroad Adjustment Board. This type of self-executing rule is not within the contemplation of Rule 13.
 We have reviewed this record in detail and find no probative evidence to show Claimant complied with the mandatory provisions of Rule 2, section (c). Therefore, Carrier did not violate the Agreement.

 AWARD Claim denied.

                                C2. ~2G~G·L'E. _

                                L ;J. o

    Neutral Member

    Carrier M Organization Mem


Dated at Chicago, Illinois March 1, 1983