BROTHERHOOD OF RAILWAY, AIRLINE AND STEAMSHIP
CLERKS, FREIGHT HANDLERS, EXPRESS AND
STATION EMPLOYES
May 5, 1965 for his failure to obtain a position available to him in the exercise of his seniority rights. Mr. Maus received payment to which he is entitled under provisions of that Agreement for the months of March and April 1965 and forms presented by him for the balance of the months indicated above were returned to him declined on May 2, 1966.
OPINION OF BOARD: This claim is for a violation of the time limits provision of Article V of the August 2.1, 1954, National Agreement.
The parties to this dispute entered into a National Employment Stabilization Agreement on February 7, 1965. On November 24, 1965, the parties agreed upon Interpretations to the provisions of this Agreement. They decided that the time limits for presenting time claims under the February 7, 1965 Agreement would be extended through May 24, 1966, and the officer of Carrier to whom the claims were presented would be granted an additional ninety days to render decisions concerning time claims or grievances.
The claims in the instant case are for difference in pay for March 1965 and continuing in each subsequent month that Petitioners failed to receive compensation equal to their guaranteed wages under Article IV, Section 1 and 2 of the National Employment Stabilization Agreement of February 7, 1966.
Brotherhood contends that in accordance with Rule 49 of the basic Agreement which contains the same provisions in Article V, Section 1, Paragraph (a) of the August 21, 1954 National Agreement, it properly presented these claims within sixty days from the date of the occurrence of the grievance to the Officer of Carrier entitled to receive claims, but that Carrier failed to respond in writing to the representative of Brotherhood who filed the claims within the extended time agreed upon in the Interpretations and in accordance with both Article V and Rule 49.
Although Carrier declines these claims for a number of reasons, we find the argument for dismissal on procedural grounds valid. Since the claims were presented to the General Agent, a representative of Carrier not authorized to receive claims filed, rather than to the Officer of Carrier delegated to receive claims filed, we find that the claims are procedurally defective. For this reason we hold that the claims are not properly before this Board and we dismiss them.
FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, 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