Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers., ZWess and Station Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (

STA7EMM OF CLA24: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood (GL-9341)

1) Carrier violated, and continues to violate, the Clerks' Rules Agreement et Milvanloee, Wisconsin when it arbitrarily disqualified Employe J. Masask on Invoice Clerk Position No. 51290.

 2) Carrier further violated the Agreement when it refused to great Employe Masnak an investigation as per his request is line with the provisions of Rule 22(f).

 3) Carrier shall am be required to recognize Employe Masnak's seniority and promotional rights by assigning him to Position No. 51290 sad compensating him far an additional day's pay at the appropriate rate for each workday he is denied his contractual rights to that position commencing on May 11, 1978.

 4) Carrier shall further be required to pay interest is the amount of seven sad one-half (71) percent per snanm on all wage loss sustained as set forth under Ilea (3) above until the violation is corrected.

 OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant., J. Masmk, is regularly assigned occupant of the
 Stoaehelper Position 51980 in Seniority District so. 4. He has a seniority date of January 10, 1974.

 On March 29, 1978 Carrier issued Bulletin No. 144 to the employes is District No. 4 advertising a vacancy an invoice Clerk Position 51290 at the Milwaukee Shops, Wisconsin. on April 7, 1978, Carrier awarded Position No. 51290 to J. H. Baxter, Ba=ler's seniority date is July 23, 19'(4.

 The Organization contends that Carrier violated Rule 3, Seniority; Rule 7, Promotion; and Mae 22 (f), Discipline and Grievances when it failed to award Claimant the position. It also asserts that (terrier's refusal to provide Claimant with an unjust tr or the Agreement.

 Carrier, on the other hate, insists that it has not violated the Agreement. It contends that it has (terrier also claims that Claimant is not entitled to an -unjust treatment hearing
                      Docket Number C,L-23887


is this matter because such a hearing is required only when the alleged unjust treatment is for as offense, occurrence or circumstance not covered by a rule is the Agreement. Finally, (terrier maintains that Claimant's request for an unjust treatment investigation was untimely.

 Rule 22 (f) states, is relevant part, that an employs "shall have
 the same right of investigation sad appeal, in accordance with preceding
 sections of this rule, written asst which sets forth amp 's
 complaint, is made to provided written superior officer within fifteen (15~days
 from cause oP complaint .

 The time limit net forth is Rule 22 (f) are clear sad unambiguous. Their import is readily disoernable. Any employe who desires as unjust treatment hearing mist
Bare, the muse of the complaint was Carrier's award of Position 51290 to J. E. Baxter on April 7, 1978. This was done in Bulletin No. 153.

 Yet, Claimant made no request for as unjust treatment hearing until April 27, 1978. This was twenty (20) days tram the cause of the complaint. As such, we mast conclude that Claimant's request was untimely filed.

        We are purauaded that Claimant's request, because it was five (5) days

late, compels us to deny the claim as presented. This is because the parties'
 intended the unjust treatment hearing to be the tins during which Claimant would
 have had the opportunity to introduce evidence and argument in support of his
 position that he possessed the requisite fitness and ability to perform the work of
 the position. By failing to request the hearing in a timely fashion, and thereby
 precluding himself from laving the hearing, we are compelled to determine that
 Claimant may not, is this particular case, question Carrier's determination re
 garding his fitness sad ability. Therefore, we will dismiss the claim as pre
 sented.

 Given all the foregoing, it is unnecessary for us to address any of the other contentions introduced by the Organization.

        F11®INGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Hoard, upon the whole record sad all the evidence,, finds and holds:


        That the parties waived anal hearing;


That the Carrier and the Eaployes involved is this dispute are respectively Carrier and Fioployea 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
                    Asraid Number 23924 page 3

                    Docket Number t3,-23887


        That the Agreement was not violated.


                      A W A R D


        Claim denied.


                            NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSWRVT HOARD

                            By Order of Third Division


ATTEST: Acting Executive Secretary
 National Railroad Adjustment Board

 By
 semarie Breach - Executive secretary

 Dated at Chicago.. Illinois this 30th day of June 19a2.