Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 28880
 THIRD DIVISION Docket No. MS-29230
 91-3-90-3-111
 The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Robert W. McAllister when award was rendered.

 (William C. Simmers PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

STATEMENT OF CLAIM:

 "1. Breach of the agreement entered into by and between the Consolidated Rail Corporation and the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen, effective September 1, 1981, in that employees with less seniority than William C. Simmers were employed in Williamsport, PA from October 15, 1987 until January 5, 1988, in violation of Mr. Simmers' seniority right under the agreement;

 2. On or about November 12, 1987, a claim was presented on behalf of William C. Simmers by Jack L. Clarkson, Local Chairman, Lodge No. 63 of the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen, which claim was never denied in writing by the Consolidated Rail Corporation, such that under Rule 4-K-1(a) of the Agreement between the Consol Signalmen requires that 'the claim shall be allowed as presented';

 3. In addition, on January 23, 1988, Jack L. Clarkson, as Local Chairman of the Brotherhood of Railway Signalmen, Lodge No. 63 again wrote to Mr. S. D. Lucas, Supervisor of Communications and Signals, Consolidated Rail Corporation and advised that under the agreement effective September 1, 1981, Mr. Simmers' claim in the amount of $6,686.64 should be paid to Mr. William C. Simmers representing 43 work days at eight hours per day for a total of 264 hours at $14.03 per hour for that time frame from October 15, 1987 to November 30, 1987, and for 26 work days at eight hours per day for a total of 208 hours at a rate of $14.34, for that time frame from December 1, 1987 to January 5, 1988, when men with less seniority than Mr. Simmers were employed by the Consolidated Rail Corporation, which claim, again was not denied in writing within 60 days under Rule 4-K-1(a) such that under the agreement, 'the claim shall be allowed as presented';

 4. On or about May 10, 1988, Mr. Simmers authorized the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen to compromise his claim, and limit it to the payment of eight hours, which offer of compromise was relayed to the Consolidated Rail Corporation on or about June 24, 1988 in a telephone call from Dennis M. Boston to A. J. Licate of Consolidate Rail Corporation;

 5. This offer of compromise on the part of Mr. William Simmers was never accepted by Consolidated Rail Corporation, and the offer of compromise was revoked and withdraw by letter dated August 25, 1988, and again in a letter dated September 6, 1988;
 Form 1 Award No. 28880
 Page 2 Docket No. MS-29230
 91-3-90-3-111

 6. The Consolidated Rail Corporation then issued a check dated September 6, 1988 payable to Mr. William Simmers for eight hours of work, and claims that it accepted the offer of compromise, which was previously withdrawn;

 7. It is hereby requested that an award be entered in favor of Mr. William Simmers and against the Consolidated Rail Corporation for the full amount that Mr. Simmers is entitled to as a result of the breach of the agreement governing seniority and recall rights."

 FINDINGS:
The Third Division of the Adjustment Board upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that:

 The carrier or carriers, and the employe or employes involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 1934.

 This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.

On November 8, 1988, the parties met and discussed this claim for $6,686.64 for an alleged violation of Rules 2-A-1(d) and 4-K-1(a). By letter of January 6, 1989, the Carrier's Senior Director of Labor Relations denied the claim. On January 16, 1989, the General Chairman rejected the denial and on February 17, 1989, the Carrier's Senior Director of Labor Relations reaffirmed his denial. On Feb Third Division, National Railroad Adjustment Board, of his intention to file an Ex-Parte Submission seeking an award against the Carrier.

 The Carrier maintains the case is procedurally defective and should be dismissed because the controlling Agreement provides that disputes must be filed with the Board within nine (9) months of the Senior Director's decision. The language of Article 4-K-l(d) clearly supports such a conclusion. It states:
Form 1 Award No. 28880
 Page 3 Docket No. MS-29230
 91-3-90-3-111
 Given this clear directive, we will dismiss this claim as proce-
 durally defective.




                          By Order of Third Division


Attest:
        Ancy J.,Pr - Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this,30th day of July 1991.