PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (Consolidated Rail Corporation
 ( and
 (National Railroad Passenger Corporation

 STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "This is to serve notice, as required by the rules of
 the National Railroad Adjustment Board, of my intention
 to file an ex parts submission on February 15, 1980 covering an unadjusted
 dispute between me and the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak),
 and Consolidated Rail Corporation (Conrail) involving the question:

 Was the petitioner in violation of the letter Agreement, signed on July 19, 1976 between the Consolidated Rail Corporation (Conrail), the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak), and BRAC which states, in part (2nd paragraph) - 'That employees returning from disability, etc., have five working days following their return to active service with Conrail to exercise seniority to an available position on Amtrak, if they so desire.'s attempting to return to duty following an illness?"

 OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant, Wayne J. Calvert, was on medical leave of absence
 from Conrail February 23, 1973 through May 19, 1977. At the
 time his leave was granted, Claimant was an Assistant Agent at FACTerminal,
 Baltimore, Maryland. By May 19, 1977, when Claimant was found qualified to return
 to work by the Conrail Medical Department, the facility at which Claimant wished
 to work had been assumed by Amtrak. Claimant sought to exercise seniority
 pursuant to the July 19, 1976 Implementing Agreements and Letter of Understanding
 ("Agreements") in order to transfer to Amtrak. In furtherance of Claimant's
 desire to work, Claimant contacted W. J. Kendig, Supervisor, Operating Rules,
 on ,Tune 21, 1977 and informed him of his intention to displace the 11:30 p.m.
 to 7:30 a.m. position at Perryville Tower. On June 27, 1977, Amtrak District
 Manager of 'Labor Relations, D. W. Napier, notified Kendig that Claimant should
 not be permitted to make a displacement on Amtrak since Claimant had not complied
 with the time limits in the Agreements. Claimant ultimately filed a notice of
 intent to file an ea parts submission on January 15, 1980.

 Claimant asserts that his dispute is timely filed since the Agreements fail to specify a time frame for appeals to this Board. The Carriers, on the other hand, assert that Claimant's grievance was not timely nor was it properly progressed on the property.

 The contractual provision for progressing grievances is stated in __:.a 5-A-1 of the agreement between Amtrak and the Organization (TC Division). Rule 5-A-1 states, in relevant part:


RUIE 5 -A-1 -- CIAIMS FOR COMPENSATION
(a) All claims or grievances must be presented in writing on behalf of the employe involved, to the designated officer of the Corporation authorized to receive same, within sixty (60) days from the date of occurrence on which the claim is based, except:



(b) A claim or grievance denied in accordance with Paragraph (a) shall be considered closed unless it is listed for discussion with the designated officer.®f the Corporation by the employe or his duly accredited representative within sixty (60) days after the date it was denied. A claim or grievance listed ten (10) days prior to the date of a scheduled monthly meeting with the Local Committee will be discussed at such meeting. When a claim or grievance is not allowed the designated officer of the Corporation will so notify, in writing, whoever listed the claim or grievance (employe or his duly accredited representative) within sixty (60) days after the date the.elaim or grievance was discussed of the reason therefor. When not so notified, the claim will be allowed.

 (e) Upon completion of a Joint submission or Ex Parts Submission, the employe, the General chairman or the Director-Labor Relations may list the case for discussion at a scheduled system meeting. All such submissions listed ten (10) days prior to the date of a scheduled system meeting will be placed on the docket for discussion at such meeting.

 (g) A claim or grievance denied in accordance with Ph (f) will be considered closed unless within one (1) year from the date of the decision of the DirectorLabor Relations proceedings are instituted bef National Railroad Adjustment Board or such other Board




There is no evidence in the record to indicate that Claimant followed the procedures of Rule 5-A-1 to progress a claim on the property. For this reason alone, the grievance should be denied. However, even if Claimant had progressed his claim on the property, Claimant was untimely in bringing this dispute before this Board.

 Assuming, for the moment, that Claimant is given the benefit of all possible time delays arising from equivocal correspondence with Carriers, it is nevertheless clear that by November 29, 1977, when Claimant wrote to the District Manager of Labor Relations and personnel to request help, Claimant knew that the Organization had denied his claim and that Carriers also took the position that he had failed to comply with the time limits for making a displacement. Thus, even if to his November 29th letter, by February 1978 a reasonable person in Claimant's position would know that no answer to his letter was forthcoming. Even if Claimant had then assumed that it would be futile to process his claim to the Chief Operating Officer of Carrier, Claimant did not bring his claim before this Board in a timely manner since he waited until January 1980 to file with this Board.



Article 7 does not specify a time limit within which disputes must be presented to an Adjustment Board. Nevertheless, the Rules of this Board (Circular No. 1) provide, in relevant part:

                  Docket Number M3-,;368


        "No petition shall be considered by any division of the Board unless the subject matter has been handled in accordance with the provisions of the Railway labor Act, approved June 21, 1934." (emphasis added)


Similarly, the Railway Labor Act provides, in pertinent part:

        "The disputes between an employee ...and a carrier or group of carriers growing out of grievances or out of the interpretation or application of agreements conc or working condidtions...shall be handled in the usual manner up to and including the chief operating officer of the carrier designated to handle such disputes; but, failing to reach an adjustment in this manner, the disputes may be referred by petition of the parties or by either party to the appropriate division of the Adjustment Board with a full statement of the facts and all supporting data bearing upon the disputes." (Section 3, First (i), emphasis added.)


When, after consulting the Rules of this Board and the Railway labor Act to which Olaimant is referred, a definitive answer on time limits cannot be found, it is logical for the Claimant to turn to the collective bargaining agreement between the parties. As indicated previously, Rule 5-A-1 establishes the time limits for the presentation of grievances. That rule provides that a claim is deemed closed unless within one year from the date of the decision of the Director-labor Relations an appeal is filed with this Board.

 Thus, even if this Board were to assume that by February 1978 Claimant had pursued his claim "in the usual manner" to the chief operating officer of the Carrier designated to handle disputes, Claimant still did not pursue his claim to this Board in a timely manner, that is, within one year from the denial of his claim by Carrier.

 This Board is very sensitive to the sometimes difficult road an individual must travel in seeking redress of a grievance. Nevertheless, we cannot ignore the time limits within which grievances must be pursued, or the procedures designed to resolve disputes on the property. To do so, would defeat the purposes of the Railway Labor Act and would effectively rewrite the Agreements between the parties. This, of course, we cannot do.

 Since this grievance was neither progressed on the property nor brought before this Board in a timely manner, this Board has no choice but to disaias the grievance. issues presented in the Ex Parts Submissions.
                    Award Number 23466 Page Docket Number MS-23368


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 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

        The grievance was not timely filed with this


                    AAW


        Claim dismissed.


                        NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJLSTmT BOARD

                        By Order of Third Division


            OPP

Attest: Executive Secretary

        Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 8th day of December 1981.