within the applicable time limits. The carrier further contends that the Brotherhood of Railway Clerks has a material interest in this dispute, and must be given due notice and opportunity to protect its interest before a binding award can be issued.

If the merits of this case are reached, it must be denied, for it cannot be supported by the agreement between the parties. The practice on the property for many years fully supports the carrier's contention in this respect.

FINDINGS: The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that:

The carrier or carriers and the employe or employes involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employe within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 1934.

This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.

The parties to said dispute were given due notice of hearing thereon.

This claim involves the work of inspecting, testing, changing and charging wet cell batteries used in portable radios. It is contended this work belongs exclusively to line employes in carrier's Communications Department by reason of Rule 34 A (2) and A (3) of the effective agreement with carrier. The relief asked is that the work be assigned to these linemen.

Portable radios were installed by carrier in May 1951 and it has, ever since, had the work here claimed by the linemen performed by yard clerks. A claim for this work was made in behalf of the Telephone and Telegraph Department linemen on October 13, 1951 and subsequently appealed to carrier's highest officer designated to handle such disputes. Staff Officer W. E. Angier, so designated, declined to allow the claim as of February 27, 1953.

Rule 24 (b) of the parties' agreement effective March 1, 1952, provides:

"In the event an agreement on the claim is not reached between the highest designated officer and the employe or his representative, the case may then be handled to the Second Division, National Railroad Adjustment Board, in accordance with the procedural requirements of the Railway Labor Act as amended. If no such procedure to the Second Division, National Railroad Adjustment Board is instituted within six (6) calendar months after the date of the decision of the highest designated officer of the Carrier, it is agreed that the claim will be considered disposed of and closed."

No appeal was taken from the decision of W. E. Angier made on February 27, 1953. Subsequently, on April 9, 1954, the same claim was again made to W. G. Bushman, chief lineman, and processed to Staff Officer W. E. Angier and, from his denial thereof, appealed to this Division and is the present issue before the Division. All through its processing on the property carrier asserted the matter was a closed issue because of its previous handling.

In Award 1510 of this Division, and Interpretation No. 1 thereof, the claim was not considered on its merits but dismissed because of the failure to file the claim with this Division within the time prescribed by the rules of the parties' agreement. When the same matter again came before this Division in Award 1586 it was held; "The award and interpretation thereof constitute a final determination of the claim. This is so even if it be a continuing claim. The failure to appeal within the time fixed by the cut-off rule is equivalent to an acceptance of the decision of the carrier. It is final and conclusive of all matters arising out of the alleged breach of the agreement." The same is

In view of the foregoing we find the claim should be denied.

AWARD