Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 10937
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 10612-I
2-B&M-I-CM-'86
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Jonathan Klein when award was rendered.
(James C. Baker
Parties to Dispute:
(Boston and Maine Corporation
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
Whether a carman, who relies on official notification as to the date
of his attainment of carman status, when subsequently taking time off and
after taking the time off, is notified that the first date was in error as
being too early in time, can have the time he took off deducted from the
accumulated days needed to attain carman status, and thereby lose seniority
rights he would have had if the first notification date had not been in error.
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 employes within the meaning of the
Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 1934.
This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the
dispute involved herein.
Parties to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing thereon.
On December 22, 1982, the Claimant was notified that his Carman
seniority date was corrected from a date of August 3, 1982 to September 18,
1982. In his Submission, Claimant acknowledges submitting his grievance or
Claim on January 10, 1983, to the local for the Brotherhood Railway Carmen of
the United States and Canada protesting his new seniority date. It was not
until May 16, 1983, that a Claim pertaining to the new seniority date was
filed by Claimant's private counsel with the Carrier's General Foreman.
Rule 29 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, provides in pertinent
part as follows:
Form 1 Award No. 10937
Page 2 Docket No. 10612-I.
2-B&M-I-CM-'86
"GRIEVANCES
(a) Should any employee believe he has been
unjustly dealt with or the provisions of this
Agreement have been violated, he shall have the
right to take the matter up with his foreman
through his duly accredited representative, as
herein provided.
(b) All claims or grievances must be presented in writing by or on behalf of the employee
involved, to the officer of the Carrier authorized
to receive same, within sixty days from the date of
the occurrence on which the claim or grievance is
based."
Rather than follow the grievance process on the property by filing a
timely Claim with the Local Supervisor, the Claimant elected to pursue an
intra-union appeal process. In so doing, Claimant did not comply with the
Time Limit Rule of the applicable Agreement pertaining to Claims or grievances, and also failed to comply with 45 U.S.C. §153 First (i), which states:
"The disputes between an employee or group of
employees and a carrier or carriers growing out of
grievances or out of the interpretation or application of agreements concerning rates of pay, rules,
or working conditions, including cases pending and
unadjusted on June 21, 1983, shall be handled in
the usual manner up to and including the chief
operating officer of the carrier designated to
handle such disputes; but, failing to reach an
adjustment in this manner, the disputes may be
referred by petition of the parties or by either
party to the appropriate division of the Adjustment Board with a full statement of the facts and
all supporting data bearing upon the disputes."
(Emphasis supplied).
See also, N.R.A.B. Circular No. 1 (Issued October 10, 1934).
A W A R D
Claim dismissed.
Form 1 Award No. 10937
Page 3 Docket No. 10612-I
2-B&M-I-CM-'86
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
00,
Attestd* r
:
Nancy J. e)joE - Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 23rd day of July 1986.