The Claimant asserts that he was assigned to the AEM-'7 locomotive program at the Technician's rate of pay but, he asserts, other technicians in the program were compensated at the overtime rate for one hour each day, in addition to the regular eight hours pay. Thus, the Claimant insists that the Carrier violated past precedent and fair labor practices concerning the manner in which he was paid. He also raises certain time limit problems concerning the Carrier's answer.
The Claimant did not cite a particular Rule of the Agreement which was allegedly violated.
The Carrier noted that certain of the other technicians did receive one hour at the overtime rate for traveling for a period of time, which was not in conformity with the Agreement and which practice was stopped in 1991. The Claimant did not lose any compensation properly due him, and he was fully compensated in accordance with the Agreement.
The Carrier also raises a time limits issue since the asserted practice began in 1985, and a claim was not submitted until six years-thereafter, which assertedly does not comply with the 60-day limitation for alleging violations of the Agreement as contained in Rule 24(a).
The Claimant raised a time limit issue concerning the Carrier's answer during the processing of the case. While the Claimant may have stated a reluctance to grant any time extension, such an agreement was reached between the Carrier and the employees representative at the time.
The Board is of the view that the claim was void from its inception since a lengthy period of time had elapsed, and it is rather difficult to comprehend that the Claimant would not have known of the alleged violation before the expiration of six years. But, in any event, the Claimant has not alleged any particular Ruae that was violated, which is an essential ingredient of a successful claim.