"Claim on behalf of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen on the Consolidated Rail Shared Assets:

Claim on behalf of J. Lucidi Jr., for an opportunity to select a `Home' seniority district, account Carrier violated the current Signalmen's Agreement, particularly Appendix (m) Attachment (1) part (d), when it refused to allow the Claimant to select a `Home' seniority district on the District 2 South Jersey roster and instead assigned his seniority to the North Jersey seniority district. Carrier's File No. SC-0030 - J. S. Lucidi Jr., General Chairman's File No. WHK-57-026-0107. BRS File Case No. 13871-CR(SA)."

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

The merits issue in this dispute involves Attachment 1 of Appendix M of the Agreement entered into on August 14, 1996, between the Carrier and the Organization. That provision, inter alia, concerned the seniority rights of employees who established seniority after the effective date of the Agreement.

The Carrier, while disagreeing with the Organization on the merits, took the position that the initial claim was untimely filed and that the claim must be dismissed for its procedural deficiency without reaching the merits. We agree. Rule 3-C-1 (c) of the Agreement provides:

"(c) 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 Manager-Labor Relations his seniority date or relative ranking thereon, except that when an employee is absent from his assignment on account of sickness, temporary disability, suspension, leave of absence or furlough at the time the seniority roster was posted, this time limit shall apply from the date the employee returns to duty.

If no written protest is made within the ninety (90) day period, no protest shall be entertained, unless the employee's seniority date or his relative ranking is changed from that first shown, in which event he shall be permitted to make a protest within ninety (90) calendar days from the date of the change."

The Claimant was hired on November 14, 2005. The first seniority roster on which his name appeared was posted on March 1, 2006. The initial claim was filed on December 12, 2006. In its initial response to the claim, and at each subsequent stage of appeal, the Carrier took the position that the claim was untimely under Rule 3-C-1 inasmuch as no "written protest [was] made within the ninety (90) day period." While the Organization continued to argue the merits of the claim, it did not present any response to the Carrier's procedural defense.

In its Submission to the Board, the Organization argues that Rule 3-C-1 has no application because the Carrier violated other provisions of the Agreement which specifically entitled the Claimant to seniority options open to him. Even assuming, ar2uendo, that such seniority rights did exist, one of the primary purposes of posting the seniority roster on March 1, 2006, was to provide the Claimant with the opportunity to challenge his seniority placement for any reason he believed applicable. He had 90 days to do so but failed to take advantage of the opportunity.

There are numerous Awards of this Board holding that under situations paralleling those here, a claim must be dismissed. See, for example, Second Division Awards 7414 and 11104, as well as Third Division Award 30776. The claim shall be dismissed.

AWARD