Briefly reason of dismissal in the first place was phone call from Division Engineer's Office to add to material reports forms 243's month JUNE 1965 4000 cross ties used month DECEMBER 1964 this instructions carried out, however a rubber stamp had been furnished Roadmaster's Clerk Joe E. Myers and he failed to stamp forms 243's (3). This phone call came from Mr. Tyler's Office about 28th of June 1965 when 243's already completed. Reason of emphasis is to show you the time element.
OPINION OF BOARD: The record discloses that the Claimant was dismissed from service June 1965 and was subsequently reinstated on a leniency basis. He was again dismissed from service in October 1967. Claimant's claim before this Board is based on his 1965 dismissal. In any event, as the record discloses, Claimant did not comply with the terms of the Time Limit rule, 46 (c), of the Agreement between the parties in filing his claim with this Board. Accordingly the claim is barred.
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
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
Interpretation No. 1 to Award No. 17694
Upon application of the employe involved in the above Award that this Division interpret the same in the light of the dispute between the parties as to its meaning and application, as provided for in Section 3, First (m) of the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934, the following interpretation is made:
The Claimant in the above captioned docket has submitted a letter containing several questions relative to our Award Number 17694 made on the 30th day of January 1970 disposing of his claim. The letter requests an interpretation of our Award by asking a series of questions, the sum and substance of which tend to have the effect of re-arguing the merits of the case.
There spears to be no dispute relative to our Award as rendered. Indeed the facts of the Claimant's case were quite simple and concise. The Award as made speaks for itself and it is indeed difficult to understand how further clarification could be had. Since there is no dispute as to the meaning or effect of the Boards' award in this docket, we simply re-affirm our award that the claim was and is barred because of the time limit rule.
Petitioner's request for interpretation, if that is in effect what he has in mind, is denied.
Referee John J. McGovern who sat with the Division, as a neutral member when Award No. 17694 was adopted, also participated with the Division in making this interpretation.