^Y































v
 F orm 1 Award No. 9358
 Page 2 Docket No. 8948

Claimant William A. Flakes was notified by letter dated December 7, 1978 that he was to appear for a hearing on December 8, 1979 involving charges of excessive absenteeism and violation of Rule 23. After the hearing on December 8, 1978, Claimant was notified by letter dated March 6, 1979 that his services with the Carrier were being terminated effective that same date.

 By letter dated March 19, 1979, a claim was instituted on behalf of Claimant requesting that the Carrier restore Claimant to its service with a make-whole remedy. The claim was declined by Shop Superintendent J. V. Sands by letter dated April 3, 1979.

 The Local Chairman advised Sands by letter dated April 9, 1979 that declination of the claim and reasons therefor were not acceptable and that the claim would be appealed through the Organization to next highest Carrier Officer designated to receive the appeal. However, the next appeal step was not effectuated by the General Chairman until his appeal letter of June 27, 1979 was delivered to Assistant Vice President-- Mechanical F, A. Upton.

 By letter dated August 1,3, 1979, Mr. Upton declined the claim, in part, on the ground 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 under the terms of that Agreement because the claim was not appealed within 60 days from the date the claim was declined by Mr. Sands.

 Subsequently, the claim was processed to the neat highest Carrier Officer designated to receive it, Assistant Vice President, labor Relations--Milwaukee Road V. W. Merritt, who also denied the claim, in part, on the ground that it was untimely and barred. After a final conference in the matter, the claim was processed to this Board.

 It is the Carrier's position that in accordance with the provisions of Article V of the August 21, 1954 Agreement and Section 3, First (i) of the Railway Labor Act and/or Circular No. 1 of the Board the instant claim is barred and improperly before the Board.

 The Railway Labor Act, Section 3, First (i), sets forth the requirements for handling disputes growing out of grievances. Only cases handled in the usual manner on the property may be referred to this Board.


Form I Page 3

Award No. 9358

Docket No. 89+8

2-CrrstP&P-CM-' 83

 The Rules of Procedure of this Board, as set out in "Circular No. 1", contain the following:

 "No petition shall be considered by any division of the Board unless the subject matter has been handled in accordance with tine provisions of the Railway Labor Act, approved June 21, 1934.11

 In accordance with Section 1(b) of Article V of the August 21, 195+ Agreement the appeal presented to the Assistant Vice President--Mechanical Must have been effected within 60 days from the date the Organization received notice from the Carrier Officer to whom the claim was presented in the first instance of disallowance of the claim. The record evidence is that the instant claim was not appealed within the prescribed time limits, without any extension of the 60-day time limitation. The matter concerning this procedural defect was thereafter raised at each level of appeal.

 The Board has consistently ruled is numerous cases that when the record demonstrates that a claim has not been properly handled an the property in accordance with the provision of the controlling agreement, as required by Section 3, First (i), of the Act and Circular No. 1 of the Board, the Board lacks jurisdiction to hear the claim on its merits. Consequently, the Board has no alternative but to dismiss the case.

 AWARD
Claim dismissed.

 Attest: Acting Executive Secretary
 National Railroad Adjustment Board

NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJITSTMENT BOARD

By Order of Second Division


.o arie Brasch - Adminis-rative Assistant

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