Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 6637
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 6448-I
2-N&W-I-T 74
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Irwin M. Lieberman when award was rendered.
( Bernard J. Moroski, Petitioner
(
Parties to Dispute:
(
( Norfolk and Western Railway Company
Dispute: Claim of Petitioner:
"I have been denied, although performing the work of electrician
and mechanic, the applicable rate of pay from November 12th,
1970 to April 16th, 1972."
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.
Parties to said dispute were given due notice of hearing thereon.
The original claim in this dispute was filed on December 9,
1970 and declined on. February 5, 1971. Nothing further was done with
the original claim: it was not appealed. An identical claim was filed
on April 7, 1971 (received by Carrier on April 13th) which differed
only in that retroactive pay was claimed to February 13, 1970. The
second claim was declined by Carrier on June 9, 1971 and was not
appealed to the next higher officer until October 12, 1971 or about
four months later. Article V Section 1 (b) of the Agreement (effective
January 1, 1955) provides as follows:
"(b) If a disallowed claim or grievance is to be appealed,
such appeal must be in writing and must be taken within 60
days from receipt of notice of disallowance, and the
representative of the Carrier shall be notified in writing
within that time of the rejection of his decision. Failing
to comply with this provision, the matter shall be considered
closed, but this shall not be considered as a precedent or waiver
of the contentions of the employees as to other similar claims
or grievances. It is understood, however, that the parties
may, by agreement, at any stage of the handling of a claim
or grievance on the property, extend the 60-clay period for
either a decision or appeal, up to and including the highest
officer of the Carrier designated for that purpose."
Form 1 Award No. 6637
Page 2 Docket No. 6448-I
2-N&W-I-'74
It is apparent that Claimant failed to comply with the
Agreement in two significant respects: the initial claim, filed on
December 9, 1970, was permitted to lapse and then a similar claim was
filed on April 7, 1971; most importantly, the claim was not appealed
after the original declination June 9, 1971 until four months later.
The language of Section 1 (b) quoted above is clear and unambiguous
and Claimant failed to comply with this time limit rule. The basic
deficiency in the handling of the dispute was raised by Carrier on
the property.
The Board has held consistently and on numerous occasions that
where precise time limits exist they must be complied with by the
parties (See Awards 12417, 13942, Third Division Award 11182 and many
others). As an absolute prerequisite to consideration by the Board,
a claim must be handled on the property in the usual manner up to and
including the chief operating officer of the Carrier (provided by
Section 3, First (i) of the Railway Labor Act). The record of this case
shows that it was not handled properly, as indicated above. For this
reason we have no authority to consider the merits and the claim must
be dismissed. We find that the Board has no jurisdiction over the
dispute involved herein.
Claim dismissed.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
Attest: Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
Rosemarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 21st day of February, 1974.