CLAIM NO. 1

(a) Carrier violated the current Clerks' Agreement at Topeka, Kansas, on May 15, 1990 when it improperly permitted an Excepted Employe having no proper seniority in the Revenue and Customer Accounting Department Seniority District to displace clerical employe Mr. W. E. Lewis from Position No. 6640, and

(b) Carrier shall now be required to reinstate Claimant Lewis to Position No. 6640, and Carrier shall also be required to reinstate to their former position all other clerical employes subsequently affected in the improper chain of displacements as a result of this violation, and

(c) Carrier shall further be required to compensate Claimant Lewis for any and all wages and wage equivalents lost as a result of the improper displacement as well as all other clerical employes subsequently affected in the improper chain of displacements.

CLAIM NO. 2

(a) Carrier violated the rules of the current Clerks' Agreement at Topeka, Kansas, on June 4, 1990 when it improperly permitted an Excepted Employe having no proper seniority in the Disbursement Account Department Seniority District to displace clerical employe Ms. C. J. Lancaster from Moving and Expense Account Draft Clerk Position No. 6159, and

CLAIM NO. 3

(a) Carrier violated the rules of the current Clerks' Agreement at Topeka, Kansas, on June 25, 1990 when it improperly permitted an Excepted Employe having no proper seniority in the Disbursement Accounting Department Seniority District to displace clerical employe Ms. Betty L. Ward from Material Payment Clerk Position No. 6118, and

(b) Carrier shall now be required to reinstate Claimant Ward to Position No. 6118, and Carrier shall also be required to reinstate to their former positions all other clerical employes subsequently affected in the improper chain of displacements as a result of this violation.

(c) Carrier shall further be required to compensate Claimant Ward for any and all wages and wage equivalents lost as a result of the improper displacement as well as all other clerical employes subsequently affected in the improper chain of displacements."

The carrier or carriers and the employe or employes involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employe 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.

Parties to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing thereon.

A threshold issue involved in this matter is a timeliness argument raised by carrier. The three claims all involve displacements. The first occurred on May 15, 1990, the second on June 4, 1990, and the third on June 25, 1990. The organization filed its initial claim on each of the three displacements on September 10, 1990, which Carrier contends is beyond the sixty day time limit provided in Rule 47. The organization maintains that these are continuing claims which may be filed at any time.

It is the Board's view that the three claims involved in this docket do not satisfy the test for a continuing claim. Each of the three are based on a single event, a displacement. It is the displacement which the organization contends was in violation of its Agreement. The Rule requires that claims be filed within sixty days of the date of occurrence. The three claims involved in this docket were not filed within sixty days of the date of occurrence. They are barred by the language of Rule 47. (See Third Division Awards 14131, 12984, 14450, 29353 and 27327.)

While dismissal of these claims is required, we do note that our review of the merits reveals that the Organization has failed to carry its burden of proof and the claims would have been denied on the merits had we reached them.

A W A R D