(Kathleen H. Chaney PARTIES TO DISPUTE:


STATEMENT OF CLAIM: This is to serve notice as required by the rules of the
 National Railroad Adjustment Board of my intentions to file an exparte submission on May 1, 1971 covering an unadjusted dispute between me and The Chesapea denied the rights of the Clerks' Agreement, Rule 4, Rule 28, Rule 19, Rule 21, the Wa;,hington Agreement of May 1936 and any and all other rules, to exercise my seniority on Position A-22 being held by a junior employee on December 8, 1967.

 OPIV?OY OF BOARD: The grievance herein was progressed on the property by
 the Organization in the usual manner up to an including
 the highest officer of Carrier designated to handle such disputes. When
 the claim was denied by the highest officer on April 15, 1969, the Organiza
 tion decided against appealing the matter to this Board. as it agreed with
 Carrier that its action in refusing to allow claimant to "bump" position A-22
 on December 4, 1967, was not violative of the agreement. The claimant when
 so informed by the Organization refused to accept the decision of the General
 Chairman not to go forward. Claimant thereupon appealed his decision within
 the Union first to the Appeals Committee of the Board of Adjustment, then to
 the International President and finally to the Grand Executive Council. The
 ruling of the Executive Council dated August 20, 1970 sustained the Inter
 national President who had previously sustained the decision of the Appeals
 Committee not to go forward with the case. Prior to these appeals
 the Union explained to claimant its reasons for not carrying the case further.
 Meeting with no success within the Union claimant on April 1, 1971, filed
 with this Board a notice of intention to make an ex parte submission to this
 Board.

 Thus, the Organization and the Carrier are in harmony with respect to the merits of the grievance. The Organization, while stating that the claim lacks merit, would waive the time limit rule in Rule 27'k and proceed to discuss the merits. The Carrier, however, insists that the time limit rule is jurisdictional and that this Board cannot consider the merits until the jurisdictional aspects of the case are disposed of.



                    "(c) The requirements outlined in Sections (a) and

                    (b) of this rule pertaining to appeal by the employe and decision by the Carrier, shall govern in appeals taken to each succeeding officer, except in cases of appeal from the decision of the highest officer designated by the Carrier to handle such disputes. A claims or grievances involved in a decision by the

                    highest designated officer shall be barred unless

                    within 9 months from the date of said officer's

                    decision proceedings are instituted by the employe or his duly authorized representative before the

                    appr;;priate division of the National Railroad Adjustsent lo.:rd or a system, group or, rcgional

                    adjnstient that has been agreed to by the parties

                    hereto a:< provided in Section 3 Second of the railway

                    Labor Act. It is understood, he-:?ever, that the parties may by agreement in any particular case e~tcnd the

                    9 month.., period herein referrer: to.


          It is clear that Rule 27i requires that natters to be within the jurisdiction of this Board must be brought to it within 9 months of the date of the denial by the highest designated officer unless there has been an extension of time reque of Intent herein was filed almost two years after the denial by the highest designated officer. The record shows no evidence of any extension being requested or granted. is extended while a claimant exhausts her remedies within the Union.


          As the matter was not progressed to this Board in accordance with the reauirements of Rule 27s(c) and as Carrier has not waived the application of said rule we must find that the claim is untimely filed with this Board and we are barred by the rule from considering it. Having so found we shall dismiss the claim.


          FIi,DINGS: 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 tire 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 Divic:ion of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved hr_rein; and


                That the Claim is barred in accordance with the Opinion.


axe
                    Award Number 19571 Page 3

                    Docket Number MS-19399

                    A WAR D ,


        Claim dismissed.


                        NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                        By Order of Third Division


ATTEST:
        Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 30th day of January 1973.