Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 11962
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 11786
90-2-89-2-75
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee John C. Fletcher when award was rendered.
(Sheet Metal Workers International Association
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(Union Pacific Railroad Company
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
1. That the Union Pacific Railroad Company dealt unfairly with
Wayland Shelton, a furloughed Sheet Metal Worker who was seeking employment at
North Platte, Nebraska, North Little Rock, Arkansas, and Fort Worth, Texas.
2. That accordingly the Union Pacific Railroad compensate Wayland
Shelton all wages due plus overtime received and all other benefits due by
agreement received by junior employee, T. B. Rossmiller.
3. That the Union Pacific Railroad should be ordered to put Wayland
Shelton senior to T. B. Rossmiller on the Sheet Metal Workers' Roster in North
Platte, Nebraska.
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.
Carrier has raised a threshold issue challenging our consideration of
this matter on its merits. It contends that the Claim before this Board was
not filed timely, in that the date of occurrence on which it is based was July
31, 1987, and the Claim was not initiated until February 24, 1988. In response, the Organization contends that Claimant was unaware of the matter
until shortly before he filed the Claim, thus it should be considered as filed
timely.
The time limit Rule of the Agreement, under review here, provides:
"All claims or grievances must be presented in writing
on behalf of the employe involved, to the officer of
Form 1
Page 2
Award No. 11962
Docket No. 11786
90-2-89-2-75
the Carrier authorized to receive same, within 60 days
from the date of the occurrence on which the claim or
grievance is based."
The Rule, quite clearly, starts time limits from the date of the occurrence,
not the date that the Organization or a Claimant may have acquired knowledge
or discovered an incident which is perceived to be a Claim or grievance.
Of note is the comment from Second Division Award 3865 stating:
"Rules or statues of limitations can be so written that
the limitation period will start from discovery of facts
rather than time of occurrence. But in adopting this
rule the parties did not so provide, and we must observe
the rule as adopted."
In the Agreement under review here the Parties did not provide a rule which
started time limits upon discovery. Instead they opted to use the time of
occurrence. They are bound by the type of rule negotiated. Accordingly, the
Claim must be dismissed without consideration of its merits, as it was filed
late.
A W A R D
Claim dismissed.
Attest:
Nancy J.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
- Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 28th day of November 1990.