l~/







( Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad Company

 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 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.
Form 1 Award No. 9356
 Page 2 Docket No. 89+2

Claimant Jerry L. Moore was notified to appear for a hearing on February 22;, 1979 with charges of failure to protect his assignment on specified dates and failure to report to work on time on specified dates. Subsequently, because Claimant was hospitalized, the hearing was rescheduled for March 5, 1979.

 The formal hearing was convened at the scheduled hour on March 5, 1979, but Claimant failed to appear at that hearing. The Union Representative requested that the hearing be again postponed, because of Claimant's absence, until such time as Claimant could attend. The Carrier's Hearing Officer at the March 5, 1979 hearing denied the requested postponement when Claimant failed to appear 30 minutes after the scheduled hearing was to commence and had given no notification that he could not attend the hearing. The Union Representative then left the proceedings.

 Based on the testimony developed at the hearing on March 5, 1979, the Carrier nct if ied Claimant by letter of April 3, 1979 that the charges having been sustained, Claimant's services with the Carrier would be terminated effective at the close of shift on April 9, 1979.

 By letter dated April 10, 1979 the instant-claim was instituted on behalf of Claimant on the ground that Claimant was unjustly removed from the service of the Carrier is violation of Rule 34(g), that proscribes dismissal of an employe who has been in the service 30 days without.first having been given a fair and impartial hearing. The claim was denied by letter dated April 17, 1979 from Shop Superintendent J. V. Surds.

 Local Chairman advised Sands by fitter dated May 29,1979 that the - declination of the claim was unacceptable and that he would further appeal the _ claim through the Organization to the next highest Carrier Officer.

 Subsequently, by letter dated June 21, 1979, the Gener*l Chairman appealed the claim to F, A, Upton, Assistant Vice President-,eMechanical. Mr. Up ton responded to the General Chairman~by letter dated August 2; 1979, pointing out that the claim had not been properly handled in accordance with the provisions of Article V of the August 21, 1954 Agreement, and was barred in that the claim was not appealed to the Assistant Vice President--Mechanical within sixty days from the date the claim was declined by Mr. Sands, i.e., April 17, 1979. Additionally, Upton noted other reasons for denying the claim on its merits, contending that there had been a fair and impartial hearing as provided by Rule 34(g).

 The General Chairman advised Upton by letter dated August 10, 1979, that he would appeal to. the next highest designated Carrier officer, and such appeal was effectuated by letter dated August 15, 1979.

 Mr. Merritt, Asst. Vice President, Labor Relations, advised the General Chairman by letter dated October 9, 1979 that the appeal was barred for the reason earlier given to Upton. Merritt noted that there was nothing in the entire record of the case to the date of his letter indicating any reason why Claimant could not be present on the date of the scheduled hearing and emphasized that Claimant's decision not to appear at the investigation and defend himself against the accusations of the Carrier was of his own choosing. Merritt
 Form I Award No. 9356
 Page 3 Docket No. 89+2
 2-CrLStP&P-CM-' 83

 also denied the claim on its merits inasmuch as it was his position that the transcript substantiated the charges preferred against Claimant and the dismissal action took into consideration the seriousness of the proven offenses and Claimant's past poor attendance record and relatively short length of service (approximately six and one-half months).



In the instant case the appeal was not taken within sixty days from receipt of notice of disallowance, the representative of the Carrier was not notified In writing within that time of the rejection of his decision, and the parties did not agree to extend the 60-day period for an appeal.

 By the terms of the controlling Agreement the Board lacks jurisdiction, under the circumstances presented, to hear the claim on its merits. Consequently, the Board has no alternative but to dismiss the case.

    Claim dismissed.


                            NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                            By Order of Second Division


          Attest: Acting Executive Secretary tonal Railroad Adjustment Board


By
      osemarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 26th day of January 26, 1983,