Parties Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
 to and
 Dispute Union Pacific Railroad Company

 Statement of Claim: (1) Carrier violated the Agreement when it removed the name and seniority date of System Rail Gang Trackman P. J. Berry from the seniority roster effective March 8, 1984, when the Claimant failed to respond to recall.

      (2) Claimant Berry should now have his seniority date 'restored and should have another opportunity to return to service under recall.


    The Board has jurisdiction of this case.


Claimant was hired as a Maintenance of Way Trackman on January 14, 1976. He was terminated in the first 60 days of his employment under the provisions of Rule 12.

 Subsequently, in 1980 a group of black employees filed claims of employment discrimination under 42 USC S 2000 E, et seq., which - prohibits discrimination on the basis of race. The class action lawsuit was resolved by a Consent Decree. Thereunder, Carrier was obliged to offer employment to a certain number of former black employees whose employment applications had been rejected. Claimant's employment relationship was thus restored.

 A formal recall letter, dated January 20, 1984, was issued recalling several former employees, including the Claimant, back to service. Said letter stipulated that:

        " failure to return to service within Seven (7) calendar

        da s after recall for regular assignment... will forfeit

        all seniority in the class _for which called."

        underscoring added)


    Claimant was advised under date of March j 1984 that:


        "In as much as you failed to report was directed your employment with Missouri Pacific is terminated and our name has been removed _from _the seniority roster (underscoring added)


The Chief Engineer received a formal claim on February 19, 1985. That claim was filed on Claimant's behalf asserting that he was advised by a lady named Georgia on a Thursday that he had until the following Saturday to report to Houston and that he had not been given the seven days as required under the agreement.
 Award No. 261

 This is not a claim that arises under the schedule agreement between the parties. Rather, Claimant's status arose as a result of the Consent Decree and he failed to comply therewith. Consequently, this Board has no jurisdiction. This claim is dismissed.

 Award: Claim dismissed.

 S
S. Hamnons, Jr., Employ a Member h nnon, rrier Member

                              r


                  A thur T. Van Wart, Chairman and Neutral Member


Issued May 28, 1988.