OPINION OF BOARD: The incident over which this case arose occurred

Hearing on such claim was held October 5, 1955.

Organization, on October 28, 1955, advised Company's district representative its decision on such claim, dated October 21, 1955, "is considered unsatisfactory. Please accept this as notice that an appeal will be made."

Under date of January 5, 1956, Organization's General Chairman wrote Company's appeals officer stating, in part,-

"Hearing with you is respectfully asked in the claim of the Order of Railway Conductors and Brakemen, Pullman System, for and in behalf of Conductor T. L. Greene, New York Central District, in which we contend that:"-

and thereafter Organization cited the claim exactly as it appears in this record.

It was not, however, the same claim as originally presented by the Organization to the Company on August 31, 1955, and denied by the Company October 21, 1955. It has been substantially expanded.

The General Chairman's letter did say that "Appeal is taken from the unsatisfactory decision of Superintendent C. O. Haskett dated October 21, 1955." The claim cited, however, was not the same.

Company, in acknowledging the General Chairman's letter on February 20, 1956, observed:

"It is noted that in the appeal you have enlarged upon the claim by alleging that in addition to Paragraph (a) of Rule 38 being violated, Paragraph (f) of that rule was also violated. * * * "

In its original submission to this Division, the Company noted, with respect to the General Chairman's letter of January 5, 1956, that-

-'* * - In his letter of appeal, General Chairman Wise revised the initial claim filed in behalf of Conductor Greene in that he alleged violation of Rule 38 (f) on July 7 when the Company failed to record all assignments of extra conductors in the New York District. He also alleged violation of Rule 38 (a) when an 'unrecorded assignment' for which Conductor Greene was available was given by the New York District to a Pennsylvania Terminal extra conductor. General Chairman Wise also increased compensation requested in that he asked Greene be credited and paid an amount equal to the total number of hours credited and paid to the Pennsylvania Terminal extra conductor as a result of the assignment improperly given to him. * > *"

Argument presented in Company's behalf contends:

"The record shows that the claim before this Board was never presented to the district representative as specifically required by

Rule 51, and that it was presented for the first time on January 5, 1956, or approximately six months after 'the date of the occurrence of the alleged violation; when it was presented to the Appeals Officer and not the district representative. * *

"The claim as originally made, and as presented to the Claimant's district representative dated August 31, 1955, was never appealed, timely or otherwise.

"* * * This issue may be raised at any time (Awards 8383, 8389)."

The pertinent portion of argument in Company's behalf is cited as:

"Rule 51 of the agreement between the parties is specific in debarring claims not presented in writing to the district representative 'within 60 days from the date of the occurrence of the alleged violation.'

"The record shows that 'the date of the occurrence of the alleged violation' is the date for which the claim itself is made, viz., July 7, 1955.

"The record shows that the claim before this Board was never presented to the district representative as specifically required by Rule 51, and that it was presented for the first time on January 5, 1956, or approximately six months after 'the date of the occurrence of the alleged violation,' when it ryas presented to the Appeals Officer and not the district representative. * * *"

That the claim is barred.

AWARD