**2nd CORRECTION**
Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
Award No. 36841
Docket No. SG-36471
04-3-00-3-703
The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee
Robert Perkovich when award was rendered.
(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
i(
(Union Pacific Railroad Company (former Chicago &
( Northwestern Transportation Company)
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
"Claim on behalf of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of
Railroad Signalmen n the Union Pacific Railroad (C&NW):
Claim on behalf of L. P. Kringle for payment of nine hours at the
time and one-half rate, account carrier violated the current
Signalmen's Agreement, particularly Rules 15 and 16, when on June
13, 1999, it allowed a junior employee to perform overtime service
on routine maintenance on the Proviso Hump Yard Territory, and
deprived the Claimant of the opportunity to perform this work.
Carrier's File No. 1211854. General Chairman's File No. N15, 16007. BRS File Case No. 11425-C&NW."
FINDINGS:
The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all 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.
Form 1 Award No. 36841
Page 2 Docket No. SG-36471
04-3-00-3-703
This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute
involved herein.
Parties to said dispute were given due notice of hearing thereon.
On June 13, 1999, the employee to whom overtime for routine maintenance
would have been assigned was away on vacation. In light of that fact and because
there was no qualified relief employee available, the Carrier assigned the overtime
to a 1st shift employee rather than the Claimant, who was the 2nd Shift Leader.
The employee to whom the overtime was assigned was junior in seniority to the
Claimant.
As is clear from the findings of fact, the date of the alleged violation of the
parties' Agreement was June 13, 1999. However, the record reflects that the claim
herein was postmarked on August 13, 1999, 61 days after the alleged violation. Rule
69(a) clearly provides that all claims must be presented in writing to the Carrier
within 60 days from the date of the occurrence on which the claim is based. Thus,
because the claim was submitted outside of this period, it is untimely and must fail.
AWARD
Claim dismissed.
ORDER
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders
that an Award favorable to the Claimant(s) not be made.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 28th day of January 2004.