Form 1 NATIONAL RAILRCAD ADJUST'MEl~r BOARD Award No. 798+
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 78+0
2-SCL-CM-' 79

The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee Bernard Cushman when award was rendered.

( System Federation No. 42, Railway Employes'

( Department, A. F, of L. - C. I. 0. _

Parties to Dispute: ( (Carmen)
(
( Seaboard Coast :Line Railroad Company

Dispute: Claim of E ~ 2lo:Ee-

1. That the Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company violated terms of

the controlling agreement when they failed to transfer Cayman

Apprentice K. J. Fzzllerih.aarrp from Lakeland, Florida to Waycross,

.Georgia on April 29, 1970.

2. That accordingly the Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company be ordered

to convpensate K. J. Fullenhamp one hundred twenty nine and one-half

(129 1/2) hours at the higher rate at each step of his apprentice

ship, pro ceding the date of his scheduled raises, and in addi.t:LQIl

any other cornpenNs.tion and benefits he may have lost as a result

of 'chi: violation. This is a continuing claim with the effective

date of December 1, 1976.

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, 193+.

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

Parties to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing thereon.

Claimant Fullenkalnp was furloughed and on Septerber 30, 1.975, he filed form 3100 seeking employment at other points on the System.. ~~allenkamp was employed by the Carrier as a Carman apprentice at Lakeland, Florida on February 26, 1974, Carrier employed E. J. Benson as a Cayman apprentice 2,t Mulberry,, Florida on November 25, 1974, Both of these employees were All!-1.0ughed during the year 1975. As stated above, each filed a form 3100 during the year 1975. Prior to Benson,, who was junior to the claimant, coTnn:encing work at Waycross, Georgia on April 27., 1976, the farm 3100 completed by the claimant was misplaced. The claimant upon inquiring about his status eras notified that the job was available and he was ssigned to work at Z:'aycross, Georgia
on Play 19, 176. At this time Benson had worked 129 1/2 hours.
Form l Award No. 798+
Page 2 Docket No. 781+0
2-sc>;-CM- t 79

On May 31, 1976, the organization filed a claim for 7.29 1/2 hours at the pro rata rate claiming that the claimant had not been placed in service in accordance with Rule 23 (f). The organization requested that he be given credit for 129 1/2 hours to be applied to his apprenticeship and an apprenticeship seniority date at Waycross, Georgia as of April 27, 1976. The claim eras appealed to this Board and sustained in Award No. 7598 during the course of the appeal of the instant claim to this Board. The instant claim ~t`a,s filed by the organization on Jan aary 29, 1977.

Parsuant to the Award, the claimant was compensated for 129 l/2 hours and his date as Caiman apprentice was changed from May 19, 1975 to April 27, 1976. The claimant completed his apprenticeship, in fact, on November 21. 1978. In accordance v;ith Azaard No. 758, his seniority date was adjusted to October 30, 178. He was upgraded to Mechanic on TvTOVernber 11, 1978 and thereafter his compensation eras in excess of that of an apprentice.

In view of the above circumstances, and in view of the fact that the instant claim was not filed. until January 2G, 1977, more than six months after the claimant began working at Waycross, the Board is of the view that under these circumstances there are elemxenus of mootne;,s and untsxneliness in the claim filed by the Organization. For those reasons the claim will be denied, It is noted that Rule 30 provides, so far as pertinent., as follovs:

"All claims or grievances must be .presented in writing by or on b ehalf of the employee involved, to the Officer of the Carrier authorized to receive same, ~~rithin (60) days from the date of the occurrence on which the claim or grievance is based..."

Under these circumstances here presented, the continuing claim doctrine is not regarded by the Board as applicable.

A W A R D

Claim denied.

NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTIENT BOARD

By Order of Second Division

Attest: Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board

BY -~..~''°.o~.._ ~/·~-~__--/
R em,rie Brasch - Administrative Assistant

Dated t Chicago, Illinois, this 20th day of June, 1979.