(Joyce Howes PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim of Joyce Howes that:

 1. The carrier violated the currently controlling agreement between the parties to this dispute when on August 19, 1976, the superintemdast imposed the extreme penalty of dismissal on the parson of JOYCE L. HOWF$, General Clerk/Billing 2 P.M. - 10 P.M. on March 20, 1979.

 2. The carrier violated the ^. --gently controlllag agreement between the parties to this dispute by said dismissal in that the appareat reason for the dismissal lederl Employers Liability Act claim which was settled on March 2, 1379.

 3. The carrier violated the currently controlling agreement between the parties when contrary to its own policy and practice refused to honor a treating physician's prescription that said JOYCE L. HOWES should not go to work for the period of the month of March, 1979 for medical reasons caused by an injury suffered by said JOYCE L. HOWES on March 28, 1977 during the course of her employment for the carrier.

 4. Carrier should now be required to reinstate General Clerk/ 2 P.M. to 10 P.M., JOYCE L. HOWES, to service."

 OPINION CHI' HOARD: As of March 20, 1979 Claimant Joyce L. Hwee, a General
 Clerk/Billing, was considered by the Carrier to nave forefeited seniority for failure to report to tuty within ten days after expiration of a leave of absence under Rule 43(f) of the contract. On August 21, 1980 Claimant's attorney filed a 3otioe of Intent to file an ex pane submission with the National Paxlroad Adjustment Board, Third Division.



                        Docket Number MS-23767


        "of adjustment has been agreed to by the parties hereto as provided in Section 3. Second of the Railway Labor Act."


The record establishes that the decision by the Carrier's highest designated offices was rendered on August 27, 1979· Rule 46(c) required the said Notice of Intent to have been filed by May 271 1980. In view of the Notice having been filed almost three months later the claim is out of tine. As Referee Hayes stated in Award 19164:

        "The letter of written notice of intention to file ex part~,· submission from the Organization is dated August 261 y~'i0~ about 14 months after the date of denial by the aighest officer of the Carrier designated to handle claims and grievances. Since the Organization failed to comply with Rule 33 of the Agreement by not progressing the case to the Third Division within nine months of the final denial by the Carrier,, as required by the rule,, we are barred from handling the claim and it is for that reason dismissed."


        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 &mployes involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and Employee within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934;

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

        That the claim is barred.


                          A W A R D


        Claim dismissed.


                              MATIOHAL RAILROAD ADJIS'DMPT BOARD

                              By Order of Third Division


        ATTEST: en ive Secretary


        Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 26th day of February 1982.