(Georgia Northern Railway Company PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "That the 'Claim for lost pay of all MofW Employees
 on the Georgia Northern Railroad beginning April 1, 1979 until proper payment was allowed (about June 27, 1979)' was not a properly presented and handled claim by the United Transportation Union in accordance with the Railway Labor Act as amended and the collective bargaining agreements between the parties, presented and handled, said claim is not payable under the applicable agreement."

 OPINION OF BOARD: The Carrier petitioned this Board to review a dispute
 regarding time claims purportedly brought on the property by the Organization. The basic facts arc undisputed. Between April 1, 1979 and August 27, 1979, twelve track employee were underpaid twenty five cents per hour. According to the applicable collective bargaining agreement, the twelve employee were to be paid a twenty rive cents per hour cost of living adjustment commencing on April 1, 1979. Between February 16, 1979 sad Marsh 31, 1979, five bridge and building employee were over compensated thirty six cents per hour sad between April 1, 1979 and August 27, 1979, these same employes were paid eleven cents more per hour than they were entitled to receive under th 27, 1979, the organization's General Chain called a (terrier labor relations official and informed him of the above described shortages sad overpayments. The carrier insists that the telephone call on August 27, 1979 was the first time it learned of the improper payroll payments. After attempts by the parties to achieve a mutually satisfactory resolution of the problem proved fruitless, the Carrier (with notice to the Organisation) unilaterally made payroll adjustment employee' testy five teats per hour during the sixty days prior to August 27, 1979 sad to recoup eleven cents per hour for the same sixty day period from the five bridge and building employee. The Carrier is now urging us to affirm its solution to the wage mispayment problem. The organization has contested the Carrier's action.

 The Carrier argues that the Organization did not institute a valid time claim until August 27, 1979 and, therefore, the employes-can only claim retroactive pay for the sixty days preceding August 27, 1979 in accord with Article 10 of the applicable agream ent. The Carrier further asserts that


it. handled the problem in an equitable fashion by limiting its recovery of overpayments to the same sixty day period though the five bridge and building employee had been overpaid since February 16, 1979· The Organization contends that each employs who was shorted filed a valid claim by informing the Carrier of the number of hours the employs worked. The number of hours worked was recorded for payroll purposes. Since time roll sheets were filed beginning on April 1, 1979, the Organization contends the Carrier must allow all retroactive back pay because it failed to respond to those alleged time roll claims within sixty days as required by Article 10(e). As to the bridge and building employee, the Organization states that the overpayments are unrelated to the shortages so the former cannot be handled as part of a single solution.

 After carefully reviewing the record, we do not find any evidence that the employee filed the alleged time roll claims beginning on April 1, 179. There are simply no documents or other probative evidence, beyond the Organisation's bare assertions, to demonstrate the claims were filed. Thus, we need not consider whether or not a time roll constitutes a valid claim within the mining of Article 10. On the basis of this record, the Organization first initiated a val 27, 1979· Because the time bar in Article 10 prevents the employee from recovering back pay except for the sixty days immediately preceding the filing of their claims, the Carrier acted reasonably in paying the twelve track employee twenty five cents per hour for the sixty day period prior to August 27, 1979. Similarly, the bridge and building employee have received more compensation than they were entitled to for the period from February 16, 1979 to August 27, 1979 even after considering the Carrier's deductions for the last sixty days of that period. Contrary to the Organization's arguments, the overpayment to the five bridge and building employee was related to the shortages since the improper wage payments arose from the misapplication of the same coat of living adjustment. The Carrier, thus, acted reasonably when it limited its adjustments for the overpayments to the sixty days prior to August 27, 1979· Accordingly, we deny the Organization's claim for more retroactive back wages for the track employee as well as its claim to recover back the overpayments the Carrier has recouped from the five bridge and building employee for the sixty day period before August 27, 1979.

 FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, after giving the
 parties to this dispute due notice of hearing thereon, and
 upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:

 That the Carrier and the Employes involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and FSnployes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934D
                    Award Number 23377 Page 3

                    Docket Number MS-23404


That this Division of the Adjustment Board has ,jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and

        That the Agreement was not violated.


                        A W A R D


The Carrier's petition is sustained to the extent consistent with our Opinion.

                          NATIONAL RAILROAD AIATTUS2·1ENR' BOARD

                          By Order of Third Division


ATTEST:
        Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 15th day. of September 1981.