(1) The Agreement was violated when the Carrier improperly omitted the name of Mr. D. D. Sanno from the 1993 Harrisburg Seniority District BMWE B&B Foreman's Roster, which was not posted in accordance with Section 6(a) of Rule 4 and which the Carrier failed and refused to correct after being notified thereof (System Docker MW-3225).
(2) As a consequence of the violation referred to in Part (1) above, Claimant D. D. Sanno's seniority date of November 30, 1992 shall be entered into its appropriate roster standing on the 1993 Harrisburg Seniority District BMWE B&B Foreman's Roster."
On November 23, 1993, Claimant wrote to Carrier's Manager Labor Relations "appealing the 1993 Seniority Roster," because the roster failed to reflect Claimant's seniority as a B&B Foreman. Applicable to this dispute is Rule 4, Section 6, which provides:
"(a) A roster, revised as of January 1 and to be posted March 1, showing the employee's seniority date in the appropriate seniority district will be posted within such seniority district at headquarter points where employees are required to report for work. Copies of all rosters will be furnished the General Chairman and the involved local representative(s).
Rule 4, Section 6 clearly and unambiguously requires that seniority rosters be posted March 1 of each year and that roster protests be filed within 90 days thereafter. A clear line of authority interpreting this rule requires that claims deriving from untimely roster protests be dismissed. See, e.g., Third Division Awards 27313, 27314, 29116, and 30776.
There is no dispute that Claimant filed his roster protest many months after the deadline. The Organization seeks to avoid the consequences of Claimant's delay by arguing that the roster was not properly posted at the headquarters point where Claimant was required to report for work. The Organization relies on a statement from Claimant's supervisor that the roster disappeared three hours after it was posted and, consequently, the supervisor kept another copy in his desk for employees to consult.
The supervisor's statement indicates that the roster was posted. Furthermore, there is no evidence that Carrier was responsible for its disappearance and the Organization has presented no evidence of what Carrier could or should have done to prevent unauthorized removals of seniority roster postings. The supervisor acted reasonably in keeping another copy in his desk. Although Claimant asserted that he was unaware of the copy in his supervisor's desk, the clear language of the Agreement placed Form 1 Page 3