and responsibility of the position and at no one station where the two differently Classified positions (telegrapher-cashier and telegrapher-clerk) are in existence are the rates the same. The telegrapher-cashier position being the higher of the two.

"The rates in effect :lad as listed in the wage appendix are the result of negotiations between the Carrier and the Organization, therefore, it is evident the Carrier agreed the telegrapher-cashier positions to be of a higher class and necessarily the higher rate should apply when a position is so classified. The Committee claim that Article 2, Paragraphs (al and (b) are controlling and that when the positions were reclassified the rate of comparable telegrapher-cashier positions should have been applied."

"The schedule involved is 'Telegraphers' Schedule, effective February 5, 1924, rates revised as of April 1, 1925.' Article 5-(h) of the schedule reads:

"'The same line of procedure as that followed in the handling of discipline cases will be followed in handling other grievances arising in connection with the application of this schedule.'

"Article 5-(i) of the schedule reads:

"'Any grievances to be considered must be presented within thirty (30) days of date alleged to have occurred.'

"Article 5-(i) appeared first in the schedule of rules and regulations agreed upon by the Carrier and its employes represented by The Order of Railroad Telegraphers, effective March 16, 1922, following the issuance of Decision 757 of the United States Railroad Labor Board, effective March 16, 1922.

"Granting that a grievance existed, the date that it is alleged to have occurred is March 1, 1933. It was not presented to the Management by the Organization for consideration until February 21, 1934, is letter of General Chairman C. Green to Mr. C. E. Hill, Assistant to General Manager, some 11 months, 21 days after March 1, 1933, or 356 days after it occurred and 326 days beyond the 30 days' limit within which it should have been presented to be entitled to consideration. Copy of Mr. Oreen's letter to Mr. Hill of February 21, 1934, is attached, marked Exhibit No. 1.

"The claim is outlawed by reason of amt-compliance with the requirements of Article 5-(i) of the schedule, quoted above. It cannot be gainsaid that Article 5-(i) of the Telegrapbers' schedule is equally as binding upon the parties to the schedule as any and all other articles therein.

"Further, apropos of the claim of The Order of Railroad Telegraphers as set forth under the heading 'Dispute' in its ex pane submission to the Board in this docket, the Carrier cites the Board to its letter above referred to addressed to the Board's Seorehary and agnin submits that the Organization's request that a rate be mutually fixed by the Board is a request that the Board exceed its Jurisdiction trader the Railway Labor Act amended approved .Time 21. 1934, and enlarge upon the schedule interpretation laid down by the United States Railroad Labor Board in its Decision No. 3789, herein above referred to."

OPINION OF BOARD.-The Carrier contends "the claim is outlawed by reason of non-compliance with the requirements of Article 5 (i) of the schedule quoted above."

We agree with the Carrier that there is insufficient evidenca showing that the elaim was presented within thirty (.30) days of March 1, 1933. The testimonv and evidence set forth by the employees in our opinion is insufficient to establish the contrary.

However, despite this eonclnsion. we believe that the Carrier cannot escape its liability maer tile Agreement merelv because the claim was not first made within thirty (30) dnvs after March 1. 1933.

It iv nnr opinion that Article 5 (i) of the Agreement has been sufficiently emuppel with-

.4rNcle 6 (1) ~cannot he held to cut n1T the claim of the employee for the grie,aneo here involved was 1 continuing ntul recurring one The employe

63

continued to receive the lower rate of pay each pay until February 21, 1934, the date on which both sides concede that the complaint was made. It is our view that the Carrier was just as liable for paying the lower rate of pay on February 20 1934, as it was for doing so on March 1, 1933. E ach day makes for-a-Sepa_rate .grievance.

The employe's claim for back-pay, however, cannot under this rule logically extend for more than thirty (30) days prior to the date on which complaint was first made, February 21, 1934. Obviously, if the grievance is held to be recurring and a continuing one on the basis that there is a separate violation on each day any and all violations committed before thirty (30) days prior from the time the complaint is first made are outlawed under Article 5 (i).

We further conclude that Article 2 (b) of the Agreement is controlling in this case since it was shown that with the abolishment of the position of cashier, the duties thereof were transferred to the position formerly classified as telegrapher-clerk, which position was thereupon reclassified to telegrapher-cashier. The compensation of the reclassified position should have been fixed in conformity with that of existing positions of similar work and responsibility in the same seniority district which was not done. The rate should now be fixed retroactively to thirty (30) days prior to February 21, 1934, and the employees involved should be compensated accordingly.

h'1NDINGS.-The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, after giving the parties to this dispute due notice of hearing thereon and upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:

That the carrier and the employes involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 7934;

That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and

That in accord with provisions of Article 2, paragraph (b) of the current Agreement claim of the Employees should be sustained to the extent indicated in the Opinion of the Board.

AWARD

NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD