The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in

addition Referee Harold M. Weston when award was rendered.


PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

SYSTEM FEDERATION NO. 156, RAILWAY EMPLOYES'

DEPARTMENT, A. F. of L. - C. I. 0. (Sheet Metal Workers)















EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: (a) That the Claimant was afforded a trial by Mr. H. V. Tozer, General Locomotive Foreman at Morrispark, on November 30, 1964, which was not considered by the Claimant and the Local Chairman as a fair and impartial trial.

 (b) That the Claimant was removed from service by the Carrier Febuary 15, 1965, on a discipline notice "Form G-32" which was dated January 8, 1965. This notice was received by the Claimant on date of February 3, 1965,

For the reasons set forth herein, the claim is without merit and should, therefore, be denied.


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.



Claimant, a sheet metal worker, was dismissed for being intoxicated while on duty on November 2, 1962.


Carrier contends that this dispute is not properly before this Board since Petitioner failed to comply with Paragraph (a) of its Agreement of May 15, 1956, amended March 1, 1960, wtih the Organization. That provision stipulates that appeals for disciplinary action must be "presented to the General Mechanical Superintendent, * * * in writing, within ten (10) days from the date he receives the discipline notice." That Claimant received notice of his discharge on February 3, 1965, is undisputed. The letter of appeal to the Chief Mechanical Officer was dated February 12, 1965, but postmarked February 15, 1965 and received February 16.


The controlling provision is definite and unambiguous in its requirement that the appeal must be "presented" to the Superintendent within ten days from the day discipline notice is received. Under the normal use of the language quoted above, it is entirely clear that the appeal in question was not "presented" within the prescribed ten day period.


Time limit requirements agreed upon by the parties must be strictly enforced and we have no alternative under the circumstances of this case but to dismiss the claim. A contrary result could be reached only by doing violence to -the plain language of paragraph (a) of the Agreement of May 15, 1956.







Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 24th day of October 1967.

 Keenan Printing Co., Chicago, 111. Printed in U.S.A.
 5308 9