(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and ( Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, ( Express and Station Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (The Detroit & Toledo Shore Line ( Railroad ComparW

1. Carrier violated the effective Clerks Agreement when it failed and refused to compensate Clerk Joseph Pawliski, Jr. 10 days' pay at the pro rata rate of his position of Clerk, which is in lieu of vacation earned in the year 1976 when he left its service as a Clerk.

 2. Carrier shall now be required to compensate Clerk Joseph Pawliski, Jr. 10 days' pay at the pro rata rate of Job No. 792, Clerk, $52.0894 per day, in lieu of vacation earned in the year 1976 and not received, when he resigned from service as a Clerk.

 OPINION OF BOARD: It should be noted that both parties, for different,
 self-serving reasons, raise objections to the manner
 in which this claim was processed on the property. From the record it
 appears that appropriate conferences were held which satisfied the
 letter of the law but left much to be desired with respect to the spirit
 of the statute. We refer the parties to Award No. 22537 of this Board,
 wherein the same parties were admonished to participate in more
 meaningful efforts to adjust grievances in conference as contemplated
 by the Railway Labor Act before submission to the Board.

 Based on the entire record in this particular case, we will consider the claim on its merits.

 There is no dispute with respect to the facts in this case. Claimant entered the service of the Carrier as a Clerk on February 18, 1975. He served in that capacity until September 3, 1976, when he resigned as a Clerk-in order to accept a position with the company as, a Trainman. In his written notice to the Carrier he advised:
                    Docket Number Ch-22608


            "I hereby relinquish all my clerical rights and clerical seniority to continue my employment in train service ...."


On the same date the Operating Superintendent sent him a letter which reads in pertinent part:

            * * * *You had five days vacation earned at clerical capacity for the year 1976 which you have not taken.


            This is to advise you that your clerical vacation time earned cannot be transferred to train service which you will be entering on September 4, 1976, nor can payment in lieu thereof be made. This will further confirm our telephone conversation of September 1. Therefore, I would suggest that you handle with Mr. Curry prior to your resignation from clerical ranks for disposal of said vacation.


The five days discussed in the note were later dropped from the claim by the organization as being barred by virtue of the__
                                                _

provisions of Time Limit Rule 25. !T1Ye~arrie:F concedes that the ten '~,
                                                  .

days s'tiaer cons era ion are valid as the Claimant worked sufficient time in 1976 to qualify for the time claimed.

 The letter from the Carrier should have alerted Mr. Pawliski that a problem with vacation time existed and., appropriate action should.,. have been taken at that time.."-Rowever,-nathing further was heard from
 `__tE~la~mant until ~ep`~96ei 23, 1977, over one year after his
 resignation as a Clerk. At this time, the formal claim here under
 consideration was filed. The organization seeks to validate its claim
 by pointing out that the Claimant was assigned a vacation under the
 Trainman's contract which was later cancelled for the reason that he
 had worked insufficient time in his new craft to have earned the vacation.
 Although this posture is certainly understandable from an equity stand
 point, it has no bearing on the Claimant's rights under the Clerk's
 contract, which is the only matter before this board.

 As noted previously, the Claimant relinquished those rights on September 3, 1976.
                      Award Number 22670 ?age 3

                      Docket Number CL-22608


          The Carrier concedes that the claim is valid but raises the

    .defense that it was not filed in time under Rule 25(a) which reads in pertinent part:


              "All claims and grievances must be presented in writing by or on behalf of the employe involved, to the officer of the carrier authorized to receive same, within sixty (60)

' days from the date of the occurrence on which
              the claim or grievance is based."


    The Carrier has a legal right to stand on the time limit rule. Contractual provisions are worked out by the parties themselves as the best available means to conduct their business. This Board has no authority to modi~'`y or dispense with such arrangements. This Board finds that the claim was not filed in timely fashion.


          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 iarolved in this dispwte 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.


                      A W A R D


            .:!aim dismissed.


                          NATIONAL RAIIZOAD AWLS= BOARD

                          By Order of Third Division


    ATTEST:

          rDacecuzive Secretary


    Dated at Chicago, M.linois, this 14th day of December 1979.