1) Carrier violated the Clerks' Rules Agreement at Chicago, Illinois when it disciplined an employe without benefit of an investigation and/or notification in w being made.


          2) Carrier shall now be required to compensate employe L. Kas for six hours and fifteen minutes (6'15") at the straight time rate of Comptometer Operator Position for November 24, 1971; and eight (8) hours pay at the pro rata rate as holiday pay for Thanksgiving Day, November 25, 1971.


          OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant reported for work one hour and forty-five

          minutes late on November 24, 1971 and was not per

          mitted to work the remainder of her assigned hours of 8:25 a.m. to

          4:55 p.m. As result, she was not credited for pay on November 24,

          which, in turn, disqualified her for Holiday pay for Thanksgiving

          Day on November 25. She returned to service on Friday, November 26.

          The claim seeks compensation at straight time for the time she was

          available to work on November 24 and for Holiday pay for Thanksgiving.


          The Carrier defends both on the time limits rule and the merits. We shall first consider the time limits defense.


          The Carrier asserts that the initial claim was not received by the authorized official of Carrier until January 26, 1972, which was 63 days after November 24, 1971 and 3 days beyond the 60-day time limit on the filing of claims. The Employees assert that the claim letter was dated January 22, 1972, four days before receipt by Carrier, but they concede that they have no proof that the claim was presented within 60 days after November 24, 1971. The Employees contend, though, that November 24, 1971 is not a critica to run until December 13, 1971, which was when Claimant received a pay check short of two days pay. Thus, the issue presented is whether the "date of the occurrence on which the claim or grievance is based" is November 24 or December 13, 1971.


v
              Award Number °20170 Page 2

              Docket Number CL-20214


On the property the Local Chairman indicated that he regarded November 24 as the date of occurrence. In his initial claim letter January 22, 1972, he stated the following:

        "It is the position of the Employes that when Carrier fails to permit an employe to work the of the day after being tardy, this is considered a disciplinary action taken against an employe, and since the procedures set forth in Rule 22 prohibit such action, the Carrier violated Rule 22." (Underlines added.)


A similar view was expressed by the General Chairman in his letter of June 26, 1972:

        "It remains the position of the Employes that the

        Carrier did in fact discipline employe Kas when it sent her home at 10:10 A.M., on November 24, 1971, without the benefit of an investigation and/or notification in writing prior thereto of a precise charge being made." (Underlines added.)


Another statement of the same viewpoint about November 24 is found in the Employee's Submission argument that the Claimant's -

        ". , position was there at 10:30 a.m. on November 24th and she was available, ready and willing at that time to try to make up the time lost by her unavoidable tardiness, and the Carrier's action in sending her home was arbitrary and unwarranted."


The foregoing quotations show that the Employes have consistently made statements to the effect "occurrence" on which the claim is based.

 Such statements, being in the clearest of terms, can only be read as admissions against the Employee' contention that December 13 was the date of such "occurrence". Consequently, on the basis of such admissions and the record as a who claim 63 days later, on January 26, 1972, was not within the time limits. In conclusion we note that Award 11997 (Seff), quoted in the Employes' Rebuttal Brief, is not apropos to this dispute. The dispute in that Award involved a claim for non-payment of work actually performed, but such non-payment was not known until the date of receipt of pay. In thi dispute the Claimant did not work on November 24, so she knew she would not be paid for that date.

        In view of the foregoing, we shall dismiss the claim.

                Award Numker 20170 ?age 3

              Dccket Nveb ee CL-20214


        fINDIMSS; Th- Thifd Division of --..a Aaj'stment Boards upon t::e whole record and all the avide_=_, finds and holds:


        That the ~;____~ waived oral liearin;;


That tae Carrier and the 77:ployes involved in this dispute are r-upec'~ively Carrier and C.7plo the Railc:ay Labor Act, as approved June '1, 1934;

 That t:iis Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdic tion -ever _.._ ~_-_ __ _, __:ed '=2-in; and
        The Agreement was not violated.


                  :1 ;T A 2 D


        Claim dismissed.


                        NATIONAL :~AIL.7CAD ADJIIST~·rN-r RnaPn

                        3y Order of Third Division


ATT-ST; zez#-~-
 Executive ~)ecrecarv

 . Dated at Chicago, I11inois, this 15th day ofMarch 1974.