s i
Pahes = na= OF xAnrl3A= 01 Y GLOM
t Case ft. 17
Dispute t
w.
V
Sr&Tay CEALM





















a telephone lasted vita the Telephone, Compeay. Care's-sr, vban not able to contact CSainsat ay Phone, rent on to the next junior furlonghed employs and offered him the job. That emgloye, T. A. Matz, took the job and be worked eight days between April 22 and Hay 2, 199.3,
Petitioner contends that Carrier should have sent Claimant a letter or a Failgrsa to announce the availability of work for It coatsrAs that Claimant is not required to keep a pbmw =mbar cabers be can be reaccbed on file with Carrier, only an address. ?etitioner argues that it is coatemplated that furloughed employes will be notified by nail of vacancies and not necessarily by phone.
Carrier aria that prior to this claim and subsequent to this claim, it always used the phone to call furloughed employes back to work.
      based on tie total record before it. this 3oard is of the o-`

that Carrier met the requirements of the Agreement uham it attempted
to notify Claimant by phone and was unsuccessful. :'..e position- was
temporary or of a sbort duration and needed to be fi-:ed · - te:p.
Carrier is not required to notify furloueed a=:e.es of teapoar7
appointments by mail. This Board is also of the opinicn that fur-ecgbe=
employes abould 2tla all relevant information abcut bow tba' my be
raaebed available to Carrier so that notification of job opportamt:es
                                            pn- m


can be sade,6a:a s"teoatie and reliable basis.

AIiA~D

the claim is denied.


                476 3. De=s. Cbsi--sea


.

O,&w

Ii. Burton n V. eo%mrs, zMplO7c.l!*=4--
Carrier Member
"'p 13091
Data o Adoption
pi