The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Howard A. Johnson when award was rendered.
SYSTEM FEDERATION NO. 122, RAILWAY EMPLOYES'
DEPARTMENT, A. F. of L: C. I. O. (Carmen)
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 employer 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.
On April 14, 1962, Claimant's regular five-day assignment as car cleaner was abolished because his necessary work was reduced to only forty-five minutes per day, and a new seven-day, six-hour assignment was established in its place. This was done pursuant to Rule 1 and the Exception, which provide that bulletined hours of service for employes in districts and agencies shall be eight consecutive hours per day, five days per week, except that at one-man point where the service of an employe is not regularly required for a full eight hours daily, scheduled work periods shall be established and bulletined to conform to the requirements of service.
Claimant bid in the new job, and over two years later, on June 5, 1964, filed this claim "for all hours prevented from working" on his former fiveday shift, and also for overtime pay on Sundays and Mondays, his fcrmer rest days "from April 14, 1962 " " *. At this time mentioned above, I was changed from 8 hours of work per day to 6 hours per day, 7 days a week
The claim was denied on the grounds that the change compained of was made pursuant to the exception to Rule 1, and that the claim was too late, not having been filed "within sixty calendar days from date of alleged unjust reatment or alleged rule violation" as provided by Rule 34.
The only acts complained of are stated in Claim 1; they occurred on April 14, 1962; the remedies sought in Claims 2 and 3 and (2) that the position abolished on April 7, 1962 be re-established, and (3) that Claimant be paid as he would have been if that position had not been abolished and he had been required to Nvork outside of its regular hours.
This is clearly not a statement of a continuing claim, but of a claim for a definite violation occurring on April 14, 1962.
But the Employes contend that the action complained of is a continuing violation, and that the claim is good for a period dating back to sixty days before the date it was presented.
No awards are cited in support of that contention. On the contrary, awards of this and the Third Division of the Board have repeatedly held that it is not a continuing violaticn when the occurrence complained of is the abolishment of a position cr the establishment of another. Thus, in Award No. 4248 this Division said:
The same is of course true of the abolishment and rebulletining of a job. See also Awards Nos. 3594, 3627 and 4187: and Third Division Awards Nos. 9686, 10532, 11167, 12045, 12984 and 14131.
Here the one question presented by the claim is whether the Carrier violated the Agremnt on April 14, 1962, by abolishing Claimant's old position and establishing a new one, which the Claimant then bid for, received, and occupied for over two years before he made a claim of violation.
The claim not having been filed within the sixty days time limit set by the parties by Rule 34, neither the officers of the Carrier nor this Board can have any jurisdiction to consider or sustain it, regardless of the merits.