PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
 BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYES
 CENTRAL OF GEORGIA RAILWAY COMPANY

STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:


(1) The Carrier violated the Agreement when it dismissed Assistant Railwelder C. E. Wolfe from service without just and sufficient cause.

 (2) Assistant Railwelder C. E. Wolfe be reinstated to service with seniority, vacation and all other rights unimpaired and that he be reimbursed for all wage loss suffered.

'OPINION OF BOARD: This claim arises out of the dismissal from service of the Claimant Wolfe for incompetence. It is contended by the Organization and strongly resisted by the Carrier that the discipline imposed was unwarranted and is violation of the Agreement.


The Carrier asserts that the claim should be dismissed by the Board for the reason that it has not been handled on the property level in accordance with the requirements of Rule 13(a) of the Agreement, the Time Limit Rule of November 4, 1954 (Article V of the August 21, 1954 National Agreement) and the provisions of Section 3 First, (i) of the Railway Labor Act.


The record shows that after proper notice an investigation was held on :September 22, 1961, before the Division Engineer as a Board of Inquiry at the request of the Local Chairman of the Organization. On October 2, 1961, the Division Superintendent notified the Claimant of his dismissal from service by letter.


The pertinent provisions of the Agreement as amended, the Time Limit Rule and the Railway Labor Act are as follows:







12490-2 1I14C





The officer authorized to receive claims involving Maintenance of Way Employes on this Carrier is the Division Engineer and at no time during these proceedings was a claim or grievance presented to him. We need not concern ourselves with the contention of the Organization that Rule 13 (a) of the Agreement has been fully and completely superseded by the provisions of Article V of the August 21, 1954 National Agreement, because under the latter Agreement all claims or grievances must be presented in writing to the officer of the Carrier authorized to receive same within sixty days.


The Organization asserts that even if the Board finds that the claim was, not properly filed with the Division Engineer, the Carrier waived its contractual rights through the actions taken by its Superintendent. Specifically, it is argued that the Superintendent recognized a letter dated October 5, 1961,. from General Chairman as a request for reinstatement of the Claimant to· service. A careful review of this letter and subsequent correspondence establishes that the initial request on behalf of the grievant was for reconsideration of the penalty imposed by the Superintendent.


The first time that the actual claim in this dispute was submitted to the Carrier was by letter under date of October 31, 1961, addressed to the Chief Engineer-Maintenance. This officer is designated the second appeals officer by the Carrier.


Thereafter, the Carrier carefully preserved its exceptions to the claim during its further progress on the property and properly presented them to. the Board for determination.


The requirements of Rule 13(a) and Article V 1(a) of the Agreement are mandatory. The Carrier at no time expressly agreed to waive these requirements and no valid basis for implying waiver has been established. (Awards 8383, 9189, 11623.)


Accordingly, the claim must be dismissed.
 12490--3 1047

 FINDINGS: 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, 1934;

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











Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 20th day of May 1964.