AWARD NO. 26

Case No. 28




      1. The Carrier violated the provisions of the current Agreement when it failed or otherwise refused to accept Mr. R. C. Trammel's displacement on January 27, 1989 causing him to lose compensation from January 27, 1989 until he was recalled and returned to service.


      2. The Carrier further violated the terms and

      provisions of the current Agreement when the

      Carrier's General Manager failed--to-properly

      deny the Organization's original claim within

      the 60 day time limit.


      3. The Carrier shall now be required to allow the claim as presented.


                    F I N D I N G S


      This claim concerns the interpretation of Rule 13


(b) which provides in pertinent part as follows-:
                                      PLB No. 4370

                                      Award No. 26

                                      Page 2


      Exercising Seniority-(b): An employee other than a trackman losing his position through forcereduction, abolishment of position or displacement must exercise seniority displacement rights by displacing an employe his junior is the class in which loss of position occurred. If there are no employes his junior working in the class, such employe must exercise seniority held in succeeding lower classes until his seniority is exhausted.


      A trackman losing his position account force reduction, may exercise- seniority over any employe his junior whether assigned to a section or to an extra gang . . . .


While the record is somewhat confusing, it appears that the facts are as follows: the Claimant was notified on January 16, 1989 that he was bumped, as of January 17. The senior employee replacing him commenced work on January 17. The Claimant reported to a new-location in order to - exercise his seniority on January 27, 1989. Atfirst, he was not permitted to work because he arrived 15 minutes after the start ofthe shift and, according to the Foreman, did not have a written bump authorization with him. On further review, however, the Foreman determined that January 27 was in fact the eleventh day following-the Claimant's displacement and that the Claimant had lost his entitlement by exceed ing the time requirement- of Rule 13 (b). The Board finds the Carrier's conclusion-is correct
                                      PLB No. 4370

                                      Award No. 26

                                      Page 3


and that the Claimant failed to exercise his displacement right -in a timely manner. On this basis, the claim is without merit.
 On a procedural basis, the Organization objected to the form of the General-Manager's appeal response. The Board finds that the General Manager's letter was sufficiently explicit so that there can be no doubt that it was a denial of the claim.
 It is noted that the Claimant was recalled to work in seniority order on February 24, 1989 and was dismissed from service on April 6, 1989 (see Award No. 20). This, however, does not prohibit the Organization's processing of this claim as to events occurring prior to the Claimant's dismissal.

                      A -W A R D


      Claim denied.


      HERBERT L. MARX, JR., Chairman and Neutral Member


                      2

              C. F. FOOSE, Employee Member


              R. SCHNEIDER, Carrier Member


NEW YORK, NY

 DATED: