(Virgil 0. Kuhn PARTIES TO DISAM:

STATEMENT OF CLAIM: This is to serve notice, as required by the rules
 of the National Railroad Adjustment Hoard, of nay
 intention to file an ex parte submission on 30 days from date of this
 notice covering an unadjusted dispute between me and the Chesapeake &
 Ohio Railway Company involving the question:


OPINION OF BOARD: The facts of this case are clear. They reflect that
 petitioner was unable to perform service for the
 Carrier from May 19, 1972 until May 2, 1973. During that period he
 underwent a surgical procedure to correct a back malady. His personal
 physician indicated that he was able to resume duty on April 2, 1973.
 Carrier's physician, after examining claimant on April 24, 1973,
 approved him for return to service effective May 2, 1973. The issue
 involved in this case is the period from April 2, 1973 to May 2, 1973.

 Before any comment can be made relative to the merit issue, we must address ourselves to a jurisdictional issue which is involved in this case. Petitioner contends that his claim was not answered by Carrier ii: a timely manner. Carrier contends that petitioner's claim was not handled in the usual manner art the property as required by Section 3 First (i) of the Railway Labor Act. Carrier further contends that petitioner's presentation of this case to our Hoard was not made within the time period required by Rule 21(9) 1. C. of the Collective Bargaining Agreement.

 The facts in the record as they relate to the initial presentation of this claim indicate that by letter dated April 25, 1973, addressed to his General Chairman, claimant wrote: "This is to request, my past wages from April 2, 1973, * * *._ He also asked for reimpursedent of 360 auto miles resulting from reporting for examination by Carrier's physician. The General Chairman handled the matter directly with the Caxrier's highest Labor Relations Officer who on may 16, 1973, denied the request in its entirety. The General Chairman notified Claimant Kuhn on May 21, 19''(3 of the Carrier's rejection of his claim.


Thereupon, by letter dated May 21, 1973, Claimant Kuhn wrote tits local chairman, again requesting "mfr past wages as a Time Claim for tire following days: * * *." He listed the work days embraced within the period April 2 to May 1, 1973 inclusive. He did not include the 360 miles claim.

 The local chairman simply marked claimant's May 21, 1973 .letter "approved" and gave it to a Track Supervisor who was not the officer of the Carrier designated to receive or handle claims. Subsequently, on. September 26, 1973, Claimant Kuhn again wrote to the local ctiairrnan requesting further advice concerning his May 21, 1973 letter. The local chairman took this September 26th letter to the Division Englneer (the Carrier's official designated to receive and handle ixjitial claims) who in turn - on September 28, 1973 - advised Claimant Kuhn that his claim had already been denied by the Carrier's highest appeals officer to the General Chairman.

 As time went on, the General Chairman - on claimant's beha:-f - pursued this matter with Carrier's Labor Relations Officer who on October 29,.1973, verbally offered to allow claimant 10 days pay to dispose off'-the matter. Claimant rejected Carrier's offer. No further handling of the claim occurred until March 15, 1974 when the Genera! Chairman again wrote to Carrier's Labor Relations Officer. In reply to that letter, Carrier again offered to allow 10 days pay without prejudice to either parties' positions. No response was made to this repeated offer.

 The next chapter in this saga opened on August 15, 1974 when, in a telephone conversation with the General Chairman, Carrier's Labor Relations Officer offered - and the General Chairman accepted - settlement of this matter on the basis of payment by Carrier of 15 days' pay. This payment was incorporated into claimant's pay for the payroll, period ending September 6, 1974, received by claimant on September 20, 1974. When the pay.check was received, claimant refused to accept it.

 Subsequently, by letter dated January 26, 1976, petitioner presented the. instant dispute to our Board.

 From this record, it is obvious that if we consider petitioner's letter.of May 21, 1973 as his "legitimate claim" as he has characterized it, then the entire matter must be dismissed because of the failure to present it to the officer of the Carrier authorized to receive it as required by the applicable Rule of the Agreement. (See Award Nos. 20977 (Norris), 20282, 20281 (Lieberman), 20170 (Blackwell), 20076 (Lieberman) of this Division.)
 Award her 21344 _

 Docket Number -21548
Asswning,.arg_uendo, that the claim in this case is the letter
 dated April 25, 1973 addressed to the General Chairman, and her
 assuming that Carrier waived the initial level of handling by accepting;
 and replying to the General Chairman's handling as it did by its denial
 letter. of May 16, 1973, then we are compelled to dismiss the instant
 claim because of the fatal defect of not appealing the decision of the
 Carrier's highest official to this Board within the nine (9) month
 period demanded by Rule 21 (g) 1. C. (See Award Nos. 20253 (Sickles),
 19983 (Blackwell), 19164 (Hayes)) 17977 (Dorsey) of this Division.)

 It is a well settled principle in this industry that a Carrier has not only the right but also the obligation "* * * to assure that individuals in its active employ are both physically and mentally competent. * * *" (Award No. 20344 (Sickles)) See also Award Nos. 20652 (Quinn), 15367 (Lynch), 14127 (Weston), of this Division. The Carrier also has the right to obtain this information from a doctor of its own choosing and a reasonable delay in obtaining this information is entirely proper. (See Third Division Award Nos. 2034+ (Sic]leo), 14761 (Ritter , 10907 (Moors as well as Second Division Award NuS. 7151 (Sickles , 7089 (Twomey), and 6850 (O'Brien).)

 Therefore, in view of the fatal procedural defects which exist in this case, we will dismiss the claim as presented.

 We do, however, recnd to the parties that the offer of 15 days' pay as made by the Carrier, both on the property and before this Board, be accepted as an equitable settlement of this dispute.

        FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Hoard, 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 is barred.

          Award Number 21344 Page 4

                    Docket Number IS-21548

                    A W A R D


        Claim dismissed.


                        NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTWNT BOARD

By Order of Third Division
 ATTEST Zwi lL r~
 Executive Secretary

 Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 16th day of December 1976.