(Harry G. Schmitt PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
"The dispute in question requests that I have my original seniority date returned to me.-
OPINION OF BOARD: This is a seniority dispute wherein the Petitioner (the
 Claimant) requests that his "original seniority date" be restored.
The relevant facts are that the Claimant entered the service of the Pennsylvania Railroad Company, as a Clerk, on February 2, 1960. In July 1961, he transferred to the Long Island Railroad, while retaining seniority with the Pennsylvania Railroad. On October 30, 1961, he was recalled to a clerical position with the Pennsylvania Railroad. He did not respond to this recall, and his name was removed from the seniority roster of the Pennsylvania Railroad.
On January 2, 1962, he entered military service. Upon discharge, he returned to service with the Long Island Railroad. On September 22, 1965, the Claimant obtained clerical employment with the Pennsylvania Railroad. He thus established his clerical seniority date with that Carrier on September 22, 1965.
On February 2, 1982, the Organization on the property protested the Claimant's seniority date on a number of grounds, asserting that it should be February 2, 1960 rather than September 22, 1965. The Carrier turned the protest aside principally on the basis that it was untimely.
In a letter to the Claimant of January 24, 1984, the Organization advised him that he had forfeited his original seniority on the Pennsylvania Railroad when he did not respond to the Pennsylvania Railroad recall on October 30, 1961.
The Carrier, in its presentation of its position to the Board, asserts that this Claim should be dismissed on a number of procedural grounds. Dismissal is appropriate, the Carrier asserts, because the dispute was not handled in the usual manner on the property; because the Claimant failed to appeal in a timely manner and, finally, because the Carrier and the Organization agree that the Claimant's action was "properly handled under the provision of the controlling agreement". The Claimant, in effect, is now requesting the Board "to rule on the validity of the agreement in question, a matter over which the Board lacks jurisdiction".



                                                4sa;aY


    uOTSIATQ PZTqL 70 IaPZO hg

    QdYOg LNHKLEDfCY QYOUTIYU 7VNOILYN


                                  ·passTtusTQ sr WTETO


                        Q X Y M Y


                      pa4eTOTn ;ou Se/4 4uauraazby aq; qeqy


    pue !uzazaq panronur a4ndsrp aq4

    zano uoT:~OTPs7zn.1 seq pzeog 4uaunsn,CpV aqq 3o uorsrnTQ STq:~ ~~eqy


    '6C6T 'TZ aunC Panozdde se '4OY IoqP7 bBMTTPU aq4 3o bUTuPaw aq4 UTCj7TM saboTdurg pua zaTZZa0 ATanT:XOadsaz

    aze a4ndsTP STq4 ur panTonur salioTdurg aq4 pie zaTZZe~ aq4 4eqy


                      !·buTZPaq rezo Panren sar4zed aq~ 4eqy


:spToq PUP SpuT3 'aDuaPrna aqR TTe PUP
 P.TOOGI aToqA' aq; uodn 'p.zeog 4uaur;snfpy aq; 3o UOTSTATQ p1Tqt aqy :SONIQNI3
-azaq pa4uasa.Td anSST aq4 zano UOT4OTpsT.znC
 sxOVT PZPOg sTq4 'azogazaq3 'pue 4oY IoqP7 bPMTTeg aq:x 3o Z Uor4oas pue (T)
 4szT3 'F uoT4Oas 3o s4Uaura.zrnbaz OTgToads aq; q4Tn q.Todmoo 4ou saop urTPTO aqq
 ;L.q:x Spur
 uor~TSOd s,za.rz.zeD aq? q3Tro aa.rbe an 'aseD srq4 3o MaTAaz zno uI
      BSLSZ-SW zaqrunN 3axocv

      Z abed SL9SZ TaqutnN PzeMY