(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks, (Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employees PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad (Corporation

1. Carrier violated the Agreement Rules, particularly Rule 63, when it established new hours of assignment for the first and second trick positions and relief positions P.M. to 9:30 P. M., second trick.

 2. Carrier shall now be required to compensate Claimants H. Sharpe, J. Vonfeldt and M. Ahrendt three (3) hours at the pro rata rate of their assignments beginning sixty continuing each workday thereafter until such time as the violation ceases."

 OPINION OF BOARD: The Carrier heretofore had maintained a three shift opera
 tion at the Washington Heights Tower until January 1981.
 At that time it reduced the operation to two shifts and established new start
 ing times of 5:30 A.M. and 1:30 P.M. On April 14, 1981, the Organization
 filed Claim for the above named Claimants alleging that the Carrier had vio
 lated "Rule 63-Starting Time", which states:

The Carrier responded on June 2, 1981, that the, "change was made due to the requirements of service," and denied the Claim on the grounds that, "there is no basis in accordance with the current agreement." An identical response was made by the
The Organization indicated that the denial letter of June 2 was initiated by an improper Officia come from the authorized representative, the Carrier had overstepped the procedural time limits and
                        Docket Number CL-24966


On this matter "Rule 55. Time Limit on Claims and Grievances" refers to presentation of Claims, "in writing . . . to the officer of the Carrier authorized to receive sam Carrier" within 60 days. Rule 55 does not state or require that the reply must come from "the officer of the Carrier authorized to receive same." Presumably the Carrier is fr Rickerson, Assistant Supervisor-Station Services" and was an official reply from the Carrier.

 Subsequently, the Carrier, by letter of August 26, 1981, reaffirmed its denial of the Claim on two grounds:

 "1) That the provisions of Rule 63(c) are permissive, allowing the Carrier to establish a 5:30 A. M. starting time and that the 1:30 P. M. starting time is clearly within the period referred to, '6 A.M. and 12:00 midnight.'

 2) That the claim was time barred, since it was not presented within 60 days of January 30, 1981, the date the new starting times were inaugurated."

 With respect to the permissiveness of Rule 63, the Rule does not say that "such position may be started at any time." "Any time" is qualified by the phrase "at or between the hours of 6:00 A.M. and 12:00 midnight." This allows the Carrier great starting times. The language, however, precludes starting times within the six (6) hour period of 12:00 midnight and 6:00 A.M. To hold that the use of the permissive word "may" enabled the Carrier to set a starting time at any designated moment within violated the Agreement to the extent of the 5:30 A. M. starting time but not the 1:30 P.M. time.

 With respect to the time bar, the Board must agree with the Carrier's view. Rule 51 states:

          "Section 1(a). All claims must be presented . . . within 60 days from the date of the occurrence on which the claim or grievance is based. . .


Section 2 of the same rule indicated the only condition for a valid Claim beyond 60 days:

          "A claim may be filed at any time for an alleged continuing violation of any agreement and all r the claimant or claimants involved thereby shall, under this rule, be fully protected by the filing of one claim or grievance based thereon as long as such alleged violation, if found to be such, continues.

                        Award Number 26328 Page 3

                        Docket Number CL-24966


          However, no monetary claim shall be allowed retroactively for more than 60 days prior to the fil


The question of whether this violation is a "continuing" one must be resolved in the negative. Numerous Awards have delineated the essential character of continuing viol "Recent awards of this Board consistently have held that the essential distinction between a continu alleged violation in dispute is repeated on more than one occasion or is a separate and definitive action which occurs on a particular date."

 Third Division Award No. 20631 affirms the same distinction, pointing out that, "The consequences of the Carrier's action on the claim date quite naturally extend forward in time from that point . . . . The Board went on to hold that the date of contract was the date from which the time limit ran.

 Third Division Award No. 21322 which dealt with the abolition of positions and referral of work to other employees, similarly relies upon the principle and language of Award 14450: "These are not continuing violations as we have defined that term in previous awards . . . . The abolishment of the Granite City position and referral of the work to gang signal maintainers is the occurrence on which the Claim or grievance is based. The occurrence took place on July 30, 1971 but these Claims were not filed until May 14, 1972, more than nine months later. In rejecting the Organization's assertion that these are 'continuing claims' we adhere to the principles stated in our Award 14450 from which we quote . . . The excerpt of that Award is then quoted at length.

 Similar instances of reliance upon Award 14450 are found in Third Division Awards 21376, 24023, 23953, 25538 and others.

 In this instance, on the "date of occurrence" there was a single act, not a continuing one, as defined above, and therefore this is not a continuing Claim. Thus the filing date of the Claim, April 14, 1981, was well beyond the 60 day term following January 30, 1981, and the Claim is time barred.

        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 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.

                        Award Number 26328 Page 4

                        Docket Number CL-24966

                        A W A R D


        Claim dismissed.


                              NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                              By Order of Third Division


Attest:
        ancy J. D~G~- Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois this 8th day of June 1987.