Form 1 NATIOTIAL RAlZI;0.4D ADJUS TI',,ETV'T BOARD Award To. 7627
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 717
2-T&P-CM-' 78





Parties to Dispute: ( (Carmen)
(


Di.s autey Claim of 1?mployes:





Findings:

The Second Division of the Adjustment uoard, upon ah_e: whole record and all the evidence, finds thaw:

The carrier on carriers and tile employe 01 employes involved :u_%1 '0:11.5 dispute are respectively carrier and employe within the moaning of tree Railway Labor Act as approved Juno 21, 1934.

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



Claimant cannot, })k-: held b7a,?m~loss for any inn:aion taken regardinIg. his seniority rights. He acknow7.ed~os th!xv lie knew junior employes ~r.ere working as up-grauEd Carmen :Then he retu;clx.:>d to service June 3, 1970. He nla.de no protes t at that time.

Again, Claimant was well a~,rare of the seniority standing of former Electrician Wright w>czi the seniority router af the Car^..,m:n's Craft; z:...,> posted January 1, l9`('2. Claimant :na.de no protest at that time. Tt was not .proper to do so sc:qe Uhrcce years later, i.e. januar; 28, 1975. It is firmly established that tine limit agreements are binding on all parties to the agrecanF:ixt. See S'econd. Iu:%r:i_sioil A~rard. 4297.
Form 1 Award 1So. 7627
Page 2 Docket No. 7147
2-`r&P-CM-' 7u

It is robed that Claimant' g sen_~.ority as a Carr:an helper is not affected. The record fails to show that Cain-an Wright's seniority date was improperly es~cablished. The record also fails to show that the Claimant's seniority date as a Caiman is incorrect.






                          By Order of Second Division


Attest: Executive Sec,_reta~y.
        National Railroad Adjustment Board


        x - ' - ^.~.. . n E. , _. ,s,_.

---~ =-_w.___ _~_.__. _.__.~ __,__ea_..__~.__._._..
`°-'"°~ tv.(Yf::iOI:i`3;Y'1.e .Bl"ar.Cf11- i_uT11.i11S~:.":~,i,:LV~ tiSS:LS'Ga.?11:Dated (~a-c Chicago, Illinois, this 31st day of July, 1978.