(Angelo Tennerelli PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
"(1) Violation of Agreement Rule 26-Claims and Grievances by the Division Engineer. He failed to notify me within the agreed time limit of 60 days's on my Roster Protest. (See exhibits 1,2,3, and 4) Carrier also violated Rule 3Section 3(A) (B) and Rule
OPINION OF BOARD: On May 19, 1983, Claimant filed a written protest concerning
 the 1983 Plumber Roster and indicating that he was protesting
 his positions on both the Helper and Plumber ranks. Claimant maintains that
 Carrier failed to notify him within the 60-day time limit specified in Rule 26
 of the parties' Agreement and that, consequently, he is entitled to be granted
 the positions cited in his roster protest, as well as granted the difference
 in the rate of pay and overtime and compensatory and punitive damages.
Carrier argues that the Claim handled on the property was a roster protest. Claimant has now enlarged the Claim before the Board. That Claim contains nothing more than vague and indefinite statements. Claimant has failed to provide any proof in support of his position.
Carrier further maintains that there is no record of Claimant having been awarded a position as a Plumber and therefore he has acquired no seniority as such. More important, the rosters (including that for Plumber Helpers) have reflected the same information for at least four years prior to 1983 and Claimant never challenged them then.
The Board has reviewed the entire record of the case, carefully considering the questions and arguments raised by both parties. We find that Rule 4, Section 6 (Seniority Rosters), ultimately is the governing factor in this dispute. That Rule reads as follows:


        Section 6, Seniority rosters


        (a) A roster, revised as of January 1 and to be posted March 1,

        showing the employee's seniority date in the appropriate seniority

        district will be posted within such seniority district at headquarters

        points were employees are required to report for work. Copies

        of all rosters will be furnished the General Chairman and the

        involved local representative(s).

                    Award Number 25874 Page 2

                    Locket Number MS-25910


        (b) Employees shall have 90 days from the date the roster is posted

        to file a protest, in writing, with the designated officer

        of the Company, with copy furnished the General Chairman and

        local representative. Employees off duty on leave of absence,

        furlough, sickness, disability, jury duty or suspension at the

        time the roster is posted, will have not less than 90 days from

        the date they return to duty to enter protest.


            (c) No change on seniority rosters will be made by the Company without conference and Agreements with the involved union representative.'


Claimant has a seniority date of October 25, 1976. At least four years prior to May 1983, he had an opportunity to see Roster lists for both Plumbers and Plumber Helpers. Under Rule 4, Section 6, (b) employes have 90 days from the date the roster is posted to file a protest. Numerous Third Division Awards have supported the proposition that protests must be filed in a timely manner. As Referee Wolf noted in Award No. 12297, a Board should not in good conscience upset a long established list where Claimant 'sat supinely by, while the rights and obligations of the Carrier, Organization and employes listed on the roster crystallized.'
In this instance, Claimant failed to file a protest when he first had, or should have had, knowledge of his standing on the rosters in question. Further, we find no evidence that Agreement was needed by Carrier and the involved organization representative as to any change that should be made on the seniority rosters, as required by Section 6(c) of Rule 4.
Ultimately, we must conclude that Claimant's Claim is stale and totally lacking in any evidence to support his position. Mere assertions of a vague and insubstantial nature are not sufficient to meet Claimant's burden of proof.
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
        That the Agreement was not violated.


                        A W A R D


        Claim denied.

                    Award Number 25874 Page 3

                    Docket Number MS-25910


                          NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                          By Order of Third Division


Attest:
        Nancy J. v -Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois this 30th day of January 1986.