Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUM~IENT BOARD Award No. 7571
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 71+53
 2-i~T&W-CM-' 78



Parties to Dispute: ( (Carmen)

Dispute: Claim of Employes:







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 eriploye within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 1931+.

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

The instant dispute involves the allegation that Carrier had improperly placed Carman A. 13. Contos on the Cannen' s seniority roster at Bellevue, Ohio with a seniority date of duly 2, 1971.

 Subsequent to said Carman Contos being placed. on the seniority roster with a seniority date of June 3, 1971, a fellow Carman, R. A. Myers (seniority date of July 12, 197? ), challenged the seniority date of Juts= 3, 1971 for Carman Contos. Carrier ,reviewed. the service record o:(' Mr. Contos in the presence of the Local Conmitt ee and corrected -the seniority date of Carman Contos to July 2, 1971. Such seniority date appeared. on the rosters published in 1972, 1973 and 1974.
that a protest -max filed alleging an improper seniority date for Carman
 Con xtos. The grievrance thereon was handled up to and including the highest
 designated officer who denied the grievance by letter dated April 4, 1975.
 Form I
 Page 2

 Award No. 7571
 Docket No. 7453
 2-N&TW-CM-' 78

 No further handling was given the subject grievance. However, under date of II>eptember 12, 1975, the grievance was reinitiated at the local level and handled through the usual channels and finally appealed to this Board.

 Carrier alleges that the seniority date in question was arrived at with full cooperation of the Local Committee, and that the time limit provisions of Section V of the August 21, 1954 Agreement and laches bar consideration of the dispute, by this Board. The Enployes, to the contrary, allege that `the violation is a "continuing" violation and that a grievance can therefore be filed at any time so long as that continuous violation exists.

 This Division, in its Award No. 6987 stated:

 "This Board has long held that a claim is not a continuous one where it is based. on a specific act vrhich occurred on a specific date. While a coat-Ji_nuing liability may result, it is settled beyond question that this does not create a continuing claim. (See Thiz,d Division A,wa.rds 1116`7, 12982+, 15691, 16125, 18667, 19972, 20631.) In this case the date of occurrence ~-~.s October 22, 1971. The claim ices not presented until !,Tay 8, 1972. Such a. filing was well beyond the time limits."

 We find the alleged grievance is -based on a specific act, that of establishing a specific seniority date for Carman Contos. it, therefore, does not constitute a continuous claim. fuithermore, we find no justif:i.cat~'.on for '.the Organization and the ag;rieved (Carman myers), who were well az.nre of Carman Contos' established. seniority date when the seniority roster was posted in 1972, to have delayed handlin- a grievance until some two and one-half (2-1/2) years later. They slept on their rights.

 `lime limits legally entered into are binding on the parties. The instant claim is barred and must, therefore, be dismissed.

 A w A R D

 Claim dismissed.

 Attest: Executive Secretary

MTIONAL RULROAD ADJUSTI:NT BOARD

By Order of Second Division


~.-rational Railroad ",-d-Justment Boa

Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 23rd day of June, 1978.