NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION Locket Number MS-25434
Marty E. Zusman, Referee
(Richard Edward Hanson
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(Burlington Northern Railroad Company
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
"a. Can the Burlington Northern violate the collective bargaining agreement
whenever and to whomever it wishes? '
b. Can the Burlington
Northern violate
Rules 40a, 40c, 40d, and 40e
of the
agreement with
no fear of reprisal?
c. Is the Burlington Northern the sole judge and jury as to when a person
can or can not be used as foreman?
d. Can the Burlington Northern repeatedly violate Rule 69a?
e. Will the Adjustment Board
entertain a
claim from an employee of the
Burlington Northern Railroad even though the claim was previously
mishandled by union officials and was not filed in a timely
manner?"
OPINION OF BOARD: After a careful review of the record in this dispute,
this Board must forego both a discussion of and a determination
of merits because of jurisdictional considerations which are controlling in the
case at bar. The considerations which govern this Board's authority, preclude
its deliberations of any claim which was untimely submitted on property or for
which an appropriate
conference was
not held before submission to this Board.
Most critical in the instant case, this dispute was untimely submitted
by the
Petitioner to
the Organization for the handling
of
claims in compliance
with the time limits of Rule 42 of the governing agreement. The Board can find
nothing in the record as handled on property to negate the clear and unequivocal
responsibility of Petitioner to process any such claim within sixty (60) days
"from the date of the occurrence on which the claim or
grievance is
based." A
review of the circumstances in the case at bar documents that Petitioner initiated
a claim in 1982 for Carrier action in 1979, which he had clear knowledge of in
April of 1980. By letter of October 10, 1983,
Petitioner states
that in 1980
"they told me that I couldn't be used as foreman and that I was restricted to
section man and machine operator only.",.Yet,
Petitioner even
at that date
neither objected,
nor took action.
The Time Limit Rule is controlling and this Board has no jurisdiction
at this date to
enlarge the
time within which appeals may be made (see Second
Division Awards 6637, 7164, 7182 and Third Division Awards 11182 and 24836).
As for an appropriate
conference held
on property, this is a requirement of
both the Railway Labor Act, as amended, and of Circular No. 1 of the National
Rai lroad.Adjustment Board (see Second Division Awards 1433 and 9023) before
such disputes are submitted to this Board. As such, this Board holds that it
has no jurisdiction to consider this claim since it was untimely presented by
the
Petitioner on
propertg.
Award Number 25252 Page 2
Docket Number MS-25434
FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record
and all the evidence, finds and holds:
That the parties waived oral hearings;
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
That the claim is barred.
A W A R D
Claim dismissed.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division
Attest:
Nancy J r - Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois this 31st day of January 1985.