"Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:

(1) The Agreement was violated when the Carrier:

(a) assigned a junior employe to a Class 32A Spike Puller Operator (Dual) position within a bulletin dated January 17, 1992; and

(b) failed and refused to afford Mr. F. O. Serrato a seniority date as a Class 32A Spike Puller Operator (Dual) in accordance with the March I. 1981 letter of Understanding (Carrier's File MW92-70 SPW).

(2) As a consequence of the violation referred to in Part (l) above. the

Carrier shall place Mr. F. O. Serrato on the System Steel Gang I B

as a Class 32A Spike Puller Operator (Dual), with a corrected

seniority date of March 1. 1981 and the Carrier shall make all

necessary changes and corrections on all Divisions. including the

Shasta Division, Western District. in the class of Class 32A Spike

Puller Operator (Dual)."

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.

This claim must be dismissed as untimely, without consideration of the merits.

The claim is based on a contention that under an Agreement effective March I, 1981, seniority dates of certain employees were incorrectly shown on Roster 32(a). According to the Organization, the :larch 1, 1981 Agreement contemplated that a consolidated roster was to be created by placing all employees with Spike Driver seniority on the Class 32(a) Spike Driver (Dual) seniority roster. with the same seniority date they previously held. However, the employees on the Sacramento Division were each given new seniority dates while the employees on the Shasta Division were given their same seniority dates. If Carrier had given Mr. F. O. Serrato his correct seniority date on Roster 32(a) he would have had sufficient seniority to be assigned to the position bulletined on January 17, 1992. the Organization claims.

Rule 69(d) of the Agreement provides that seniority dates on rosters "shall not be open to question" if protests are not filed on "two successive rosters." There is no evidence that Mr. F. O. Serrato. the named Claimant in this matter. or that any of the unnamed Claimants protested his/their seniority standing(s) on Roster 32(a) within two successive roster periods subsequent to the posting of the initial roster established by the March 1, 1981 Agreement. Accordingly, it is way too late to now entertain claims that are based on an allegation that employees on Roster 32(a) are shown with the wrong seniority dates.

AWARD