NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION

 C, Robert Roadley, Referee

 PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

 Award Number 19781
 Docket Number CL-19763

 (Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks,
 ( Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employes
 (
 (Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad Company

L) Carrier violated the Clerks' Rules Agreement at Milwaukee, Wis, when it failed to assign the senior qualified employe requesting same, to the temporary vacancy on Yard Clerk Position 08800 effective February 16, 1 71,

 2) Carrier treated employe L. Bintz unfairly and unjustly when it acted in an arbitrary manner in denying him his seniority rights by not assigning him to the tempora same under the provisions of Rule 9 (g),

 3) Carrier shall now be required to compensate employe L, Rintz an additional day's pay at the rate of Position 08800 for each day the position worked during the period February 16, 1971 and February 26, 1971, inclusive,

 4) Carrier shall now be required to compensate employe L, Bintz at the penalty rate of Position 08800 for any and all overtime work performed on this position during the period February 16, 1971 to and including February 26, 1971,

 OPINION OF BOARD: The claim before us involves the alleged violation, by the
 Carrier, of claimant's seniority rights when he was not
 assigned to fill a temporary vacancy, for which claimant had submitted a bid,
 and that, therefore, he be compensated with an additional day's pay for each
 day the position involved worked plus overtime worked on the position, during
 the dates specified in the claim.

 Before addressing ourselves to the merits of the claim we must reach a determination as to whether there is present a procedural defect in the handling of the claim on t of the record shows the following undisputed facts:



















The record is clear that the Organization did not notify the Carrier that the decision of the Asst. Supt, was not accepted, nor did they notify Carrier representative th designated to receive such appeal. Rather, the Carrier was advised that the original claim was being withdrawn and that a revised claim was being filed directly with the Vice President of Labor Relations. It is obvious that claimant did not comply with the requirements of Rule 36 when he failed to notify Carrier that the declination had been rejected and that appeal would be taken to the next higher officer designated to receive such appeal.
                  Docket .`;umber CL-19763


        Award 17959 states:


        "Further, a review of the record indicates that even before

        arriving at the stage wherein the claim was amended, the Carrier

        Officer authorized to receive claims in the first instance de

        clined the claim but has never been notified in writing that his

        declination has been rejected. This combined with the later amend

        ment of the claim, stands in violation of Schedule Rule 36 of the

        Agreement, the time limit Rule. Hence, we will dismiss this claim

        on the procedural provisions of that Rule, without considering the

        merits oC the case." - -


?tang other Awards of this Board have, likewise, affirmed the ,rincipLe reiterated above. See Awards 8564, 10317, 10793, 13511, etc.

 Numerous other Awards of this Board have also held, under circumstances similar to those present in the instant case, that failure to timely appeal a claim on the property bars any further prosecution of the claim. See Awards 10179, 11980, 16283, 18007,

 Therefore, in view of the fact that Carrier was not notified that the initial decision denying the claim was rejected and also that appeal to the next higher officer designated to receive such appeal was not timely taken, we have no alternative but to dismiss the claim on the procedural provisions of Rule 36 of the Agreement without considering the merits of the case.

        FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:


        That the parties waived oral hearing;


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

        That the claim be dismissed.

                    Award Number 19781 Page 4

                    Docket Number CL-19763

                    A W A R D


        Claim dismissed.


                          NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                          By Order of Third Division


ATTEST: Lj
 Executive Secretary

 Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 25th day of May, 1973.

 ._. :.. =
 .'..y .. :. ,~