Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
Award No. 31737
Docket No. SG-32252
96-3-95-3-58
The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee
Edwin H. Bern when award was rendered.
(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(National Railroad Passenger Corporation (AMTRAK)
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
"Claim on behalf of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of Railroad
Signalmen on the National Railroad Passenger Corp. (NRPC-S)
Claim on behalf of D. L. Kegris, R. L. Byus Jr., M. F. Cremen, M. D.
McDonough, D. P. Wilson Jr. and L. C. Siperek Jr., protesting the
improper seniority roster dates assigned to D. R. Congleton, account
Carrier violated the current Signalmen's Agreement, particularly Rule 5
and Appendix `M', when it assigned Mr. Congleton seniority in the
Maintainer, Signalman, .-assistant Signalman and Helper classes.
Carrier's File No. NEC-BRS(W)-SD-659. General Chairman's File No.
RM2576-106-194. BRS File Case No. 9428-NRPC(S)."
FINDINGS:
The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and an the
evidence, finds that:
The carrier or carriers and the employee or employees involved in this dispute
are respectively carrier and employee 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 were given due notice of hearing thereon.
Form 1 .-sward \o. 31737
Page 2 Docket No. SG-32252
96-3-95-3-58
On February 28, 1994, the Carrier posted a seniority roster for the Lancaster
Repair Shop listing employee D. R. Congleton with a seniority date of August 20. 1990
in the Electronic Technician. Maintainer. Signalman. Assistant Signalman and Helper
classes. On March 5, 1994, the Organization submitted a roster protest on behalf of
Claimants contending that there was an error in Congleton's seniority dates. The
record further shows that Congieton's seniority date of August 20, 1990 first appeared
on the 1991 roster and remained with that date on rosters for the succeeding years.
Rule 9(c) states:
"An employee. or his union representative, shall have ninety (90) calendar
days from the date his name first appears on the seniority roster to protest.
in writing, to the Division Engineer, his seniority date or relative ranking
thereon ....
If no written protest is made within the ninety (90) calendar day period. no
protest shall be entertained, unless the employee's seniority roster date
of
his relative ranking is changed from that first shown ...."
The Organization's 1994 protest effectively challenges Congleton's seniority date
which was established on the 1991 roster. That protest is clearly untimely under the 90
day requirement
of
Rule 9(c). See Third Division Award 27313:
"Agreeing with the Organization's argument would result in potential
chaos for the crucial rights and obligations established by the previously
posted lists . ... On balance, that element of stability requires in this case
that the employee who sat on his rights be precluded from protesting the
loss of those rights when that protest comes at such a late time."
See also, Third Division Awards 31364, 31134, 29234, 29116, 28467: Second
Division Awards 12026, 7.114; and Fourth Division Award 4625.
The claim must therefore be dismissed.
..WARD
Claim dismissed.
Form 1 Award No. 31737
Page 3 Docket No. SG-32252
96-3-95-3-58
ORDER
This Board, after consideration
of
the dispute identified above, hereby orders that
as award favorable to the Claimant(s) not be made.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order
of
Third Division
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 24th day of October 1996.