Irving T. Bergman, Referee


      (Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

                    (Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad Company


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


      (1) The Carrier violated the Agreement when it failed and refused to allow Willie Earl Young pay in lieu of the vacation due him at the time his seniority and employment relationship was terminated (System File 2579-26/400184).


      (2) Mr. Willie Earl Young be allowed five days' vacation pay because of the violation referred to within Part (1) of this claim.


      OPINION OF BOARD: Both parties agree that claimant was furloughed on August

      13, and that he was required to file his name and address in writing within ten calendar days from the furlough date if he wanted to retain his seniority righ October 6, the Carrier notified the employe that his seniority and employment relationship with the railroad had been terminated for failure to comply with the above Rule. Petitioner claims that he did comply. Sufficient proof, however, is not presented in


      Both parties rely upon Awards of Public Law Board No. 76, pertaining to the same type of claim and disposing of the same issues and arguments as were presented in this case. Accordingly, we shall apply the reasoning of that Board to the facts disclosed by this Record.


        By letter dated October 18, this claim was presented. Carrier's letter dated November 9, limit as provided by Article 28, Rule 1 (A) of the current agreement." No mention is made of the dat date of the occurrence from which the 60 day time limit would run, according to the Rule cited.


        The claim was processed to the next step by the Organization in its letter dated November 19. In this letter and thereafter, the Organization alleged that the claim was timely presented. The Organization's rationale for this position is that Rule 11 of Article 3 also provided that the Carrier will notify the employe by mail after the furloughed employe has lost his seniority by failing to file as required by this Rule, with copy to the General Chairman. Since this notice was dated October 6, the Organization maintained that the claim dated October 18 was timely.


i. 1
                  Award Number 19944 Page 2

                  Docket Number MW-20005


The Carrier responded to this by again declining the claim in its letter dated December 3. Again the Carrier did not indicate the date on which the claim letter was received. We have examined all the correspondence from the Carrier which is in the Record. The Carrier does not say at any time when the claim letter of October 18 was received. This is significant because in this letter the Carrier has stated that the date of occurrence from which the 60 day time limit would run is August 24. This is the last date on which claimant could have filed to retain his seniority rights and the date on which he lost his rights by failing to file.

 As in the cases presented to Public Law Board No. 76, in Award No. 1, 15, 20 and 21, the claimant is entitled to receive vacation pay. That is conceded. In each of the Public Law Board cases, however, the claim was not filed within 60 days of the occurrence of the event from which the time limit is to be measured.

 In chis case, the Carrier has established August 24 as the date from which to count the 60 day time limit. This follows the Awards of the Public Law Board. This date is also consistent with Awards submitted for our consideration on the subject o Second Division Award No. 3545, p. 7, also cited in Third Division Award 19177. It follows that October 18 is within 60 days of August 24 and, therefore, the claim was timely filed. In arriving at this conclusion, we noted that the Carrier has not protested that the claim was not received within 60 days of August 24. In fact, we repeat, the Carrier has been silent as to the date of receipt of the letter dated October 18.

 In Public Law Board No. 76, Award No. 1, the Board stated, starting
 at the foot of page 5, the following: "It is with great reluctance that we
 reach this result. Carrier admits that the Claimants --- became entitled to
 vacation pay While morally and equitably Claimants are entitled to
 their vacation pay, Carrier is within its legal rights in standing on the time
 limit rule. This Board --- is bound by the procedural rules adopted by the
 parties. As indicated above, they work both ways."

 Carrier has argued that the Petitioner is limited to the contention raised on the property that October 6 is the date from which to count the 60 days. If we accepted this argument, we would be ignoring the facts brought out when the case was processed and discussed on the property. We may not ignore the facts but must apply them literally according to the Rules stated in the Agreement. As quoted above, we are bound by the rules adopted by the parties. They work both ways.
                        Award Number 19944 page 3

                      Docket lwber MW-20005


              FIlIDIluS: 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 Lrployes involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier ,nd Employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934;


        That this Dii-i-ion of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved hercin; and


        The date of occurrence to start the time limit is August 24. The claim was presented in writing within sixty days from that date.


' A W A R D

              Claim sustained.


                                  NATIOILAL RAILNC:tD LDJUST.^hT BOJ'1RD

I By Order of Third Division

        ATTEST: GCr

        Executive Secretary


        Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 28th day of September 1973.