concern (Woodman Construction) to perform the routine B&B

maintenance work of removing existing swing doors and installing

overhead doors and related construction and repair work at the

Roundhouse in Three River Falls, Minnesota on November 15, 16,

17, 18, 19, 22, 23, 24, 29, December 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8 and 9, 1993

(System File 8744/8-00159).

(2) The Agreement was further violated when the Carrier failed to furnish the General Chairman with advance written notice of its intention to contract out said work as required by Rule 1.

above, Foreman K. K. Walberg, Assistant Foreman L. J. Samson,

Carpenter T. Myers, Truck Operator M. Abercrombie and B&B

Relief Worker P. Storhaug shall each receive one hundred

thirty-six (136) hours' pay at their respective straight time rates and

all overtime, vacation and fringe benefits lost."

Parties to said dispute were given due notice of hearing thereon.

On January 18,1993, the Carrier received a claim on behalf of employee holding seniority in the Bridge & Building (B&B) Subdepartment. The claim alleged that between November 15 and December 9, 1992, an outside contractor performed B&B Subdepartment work, namely removing swing doors on the Roundhouse at Thief River Falls, Minnesota, and replacing them with roll-up overhead doors.

It was the Organization's position that the Claimants were qualified to perform this work and had customarily, historically and traditionally replaced and installed Roundhouse doors in the past. Therefore, the Organization requested that each Claimant be compensated 136 hours' pay for being denied the opportunity to perform work that should have been assigned to them rather than to an outside contractor.

The claim was denied by the Carrier and appealed in accordance with the applicable Schedule Agreement. On April 28, 1994 and again on March 9, 1995, after the claim was discussed in conference, the Carrier's Vice President for Labor Relations argued, among other things, that the claim had not been timely filed initially.

On this property, claims must be submitted within 60 days or else they are barred. The Organization's claim alleges that commencing on November 15, 1992, the Carrier impermissibly contracted out B&B Subdepartment work. Thus, a claim had to be submitted by January 14, 1993, to be timely. The Carrier received the claim on January 18, 1993, beyond the 60-day time limit.

The Organization maintains that the claim was sent by certified mail on January 11,1993. However, the return receipt was discarded because the Carrier did not assert a time limit violation when the claim was originally denied.

The Board has held that a time limit violation may be raised at any time during handling of a claim on the property. This defense does not have to be made at the initial step of claim handling. Therefore, the Carrier's Vice President of Labor Relations had the right to argue that the claim was untimely filed on January 18, 1993, at the initial step.

The Organization failed to demonstrate that the claim was filed by January 14, 1993, when the 60-day time limit expired. Accordingly, it is barred without addressing the merits of the claim.