Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 12220
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 12106
 91-2-90-2-219
 The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Herbert L. Marx, Jr., when award was rendered.

 (Brotherhood Railway Carmen/ Division of TCU PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
1. That the Chesapeake & Ohio Railroad Company (CSX Transportation, Inc.) (hereinafter "carrier") violated the provisions of Rule 11 of the Shop Crafts Agreement between Transportation Communications International Union - Carmen's Division and the Chesapeake & Ohio Railroad Company (CSX Transportation, Inc.) (revised June 1, 1969) and the service rights of Carmen C. E. McCormick, P. Curran, L. J. Eversole, S. Harmon and R. Golden (hereinafter "claimants") when the carrier did not allow the claimants to work on overtime from February 26, 1988 through March 4, 1988.

 2. That, accordingly, the claimants are entitled to be compensated for eight (8) hours each at the applicable Lead Carmen's time and one-half rate.

 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.

 Beginning February 26, 1988, a five-day second shift Lead Carman's vacation absence existed on the Shop Track at Huntington, West Virginia. The Lead Carman's position was filled by a second shift Carman, and the resulting vacancy was filled from the Carmen's overtime board.

 The Local Chairman initiated a Claim contending that the Lead Carman's position should have been filled on a day-to-day basis by five different Lead Carmen. The Claim was dated April 22, 1988. The Carrier states that the
 Form 1 Award No. 12220
 Page 2 Docket No. 12106
 91-2-90-2-219

 Claim was received by the appropriate local officer on April 27, 1988. There is no evidence to challenge that this was the date on which the Claim was received.

 The Carrier argues that the Claim must be dismissed on a procedural basis, since it was not received by the Carrier until 61 days following the "occurrence." Rule 35 provides in pertinent part as follows:

There are varying interpretations of the meaning of the time limit Rule for Claim processing. The use of the word "presented," as in this instance, is generally interpreted to mean actual receipt of the Claim. Beginning with the day following the "occurrence" and noting that February 1988 had 29 days, the Carrier is correct in that the Claim was untimely "presented" and therefore may not be considered on its merits.




                            By Order of Second Division


                    010~e~

Attest: _
        ancy J. v -Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this-18th day of December 1991.