PARTIES ) The Cincinnati Union Terminal Company
 TO THE ) and
 DISPUfiE ) Transportation--Communication Division, BRAC

 QUESTIONS
 AT ISSUE: (1) Did Carrier violate the February 7, 196.5
 Mediation Agreement between the parties
 when it failed and refused to properly
 compensate the following protected
 employees: John Youtsey, Howard Quinn
 and Robert McDonald, commencing June 1,
 1969 for all days lost due to Carrier
 abolishing their positions without an
 implementing agreement and refusing to
 compensate them under Article IV of the
 Agreement?









OPINION
 OF BOARD: During the proceedings of the Disputes Committee,
 the Organization stated that only two claimants
 should be listed, since John Youtsey had been out
 ill for the entire period involved.

 Carrier contends that the issues submitted here are not reviewable on their merits, since the matter was not timely brought to the committee. The time-limit rule applicable on the property requires submission to the proper tribunal within nine months after a denial by Carrier's highest

                                  AWARD No. .3~5

                                  Case No. Ch-56-E (TC)


officer. The claims were finally denied in October, 1969, but
 -the matter was not submitted to the Dispates Committee until
 May, 1972.

 It appears that t'iie claims had been submitted to the Third Division, which on march 1C), 1972, dismissed them on the ground that the Disputes Committee was the proper forum.

 Page 18 of the Interpretations provides that Individual claims for compensation under the Fe:3ruary 7 Agreement must hr= handled in accordance with time-limit riles. What the per: ties did, therefore, was to say that anlr issue under t"~e Febuary 7 Agreement acust be filed within the same time limits as ads isvue ultimately destined for the Third Division.

 The only place to bring a question under the Fc-brcary 7 Agreement Hs the Disputes Committee, in accordance with Article VII, Section 1. It must be submitted in accordanue with the parties' time-limit rules. The parties could have agreed upon any time period they wished within which a matter must be submitted to this Committee. They chose to use the same rules which were in existence for other purposes, and all parties to the February 7 Agreement are therefore bound by them in the handling of issues arising under that Agreement. An intervening filing with some other tribunal does not suspend the time-limit rules for filing with the Disputes Committee.

 Previous Awards of the Disputes Committee, including 308, have held that time-limit rules must be observed, and there ?s no basis upon which either the Interpretations or those Awards should be sel aside in this caca.

 There have been various instances where O rganivations have filed clwizas with both tribunals in order to obviate ;:he possibility of going before the improper triNurcal and thereby being barred in the proper forum. In Uself, that acknowledges the need for timeliness in the foruua which does have jurisdiction over the issue involved. The nine-month rule does not begin to operate after dismissal by the Third Division, but after denial by the Carrier's highest officer. Under those circumstances, it must be held that the claims should be dismissed.
                          -2-


                                                        40

                                ._CARD NO. 3

                                Case No. CL-56-E (TC)


                      A W A R D


                Claims dismissed.


                          Milton Friedman Neutral Member


Dated: October /2, 1972
        Washington, D. C.


-3-