1225 CONNECTICUT AVENUE, N.W., WASHINGTON, D. C.20036/AREA CODE: 202-659-9320
WILLIAM H. DEMPSEY, Chairman H. E. GREER, Vice Chairman ROBERT BROWN, Vice Chairman
 W. L. BURNER, Jr., Director of Research J. F. GRIFFIN, Director of Labor Relations
 D. P. LEE, General Counsel T. F. STRUNCK, Administrator of Disputes Committees


Mr. Nicholas H. Zumas
 1990 M Street, N. W.
 Washington, D. C. 20036

 Dr. Murray M. Rohman
 Professor of Industrial Relations
 Texas Christian University
 Fort Worth, Texas 76129

 Mr. Milton Friedman
 850 Seventh Avenue
 New York, New York 10019

 Gentlemen:

 This will supplement our previous letters with which we forwarded to you copies of Awards of Special Board of Adjustment No. 605 established by Article VII of the February 7, 1965 Agreement.

 There is attached copy of Award No. 385, Case No. H&RE-29-W, dated December 18, 1974 rendered by Special Board of Adjustment No. 605.

cc. Chairman, Employees National Conference Committee (10)
    Messrs. R. W. Smith (2)

    C. L. Dennis (2)

    S. G. Bishop

    E. J. Neal

    C. J. Chamberlain (2)

    M. B. Frye (2)

    W. W. Altus

    H. C. Crotty (2)

    rJ. J. Berta (2)

    Lester Schoene, Esquire

    R. K. Quinn, Jr. (3)

    W. F. Euker

    T. F. Strunck

                                    Award No. 385

                                    Case No. H&RE-29-W


            SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT N0. 605


PARTIES ) Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Bartenders International
 TO ) Union
 DISPUTE:) and
 Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company

 QUESTION (1) Did the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company
 AT ISSUE: violate the February 7, 1965 Agreement when it failed
 and refused to make Mr. Gene L. Attig whole in ac
 cordance with Article IV, Section 2, of the Agreement
 for the month of January, 1974, and subsequent months
 in which he did not earn, through service in the
 craft or class of dining car employee covered by his
 seniority as such employee, the equivalent of his base
 period compensation as adjusted in accordance with
 said Section.
 (2) If the answer to Question (1) is in the affirmative,
 shall the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Com
 pany now restore Mr. Gene L. Attig to protected status
 under the Agreement and pay him the difference between
 his earnings in the craft or class of dining car em
 ployee covered by his seniority as such employee and
 his base period compensation as adjusted and as
 specified in Article IV, Section 2, of the February 7,
 1965 Agreement for January, 1974, and subsequent
 months.

 OPINION The initial question to be determined in this dispute is
 OF BOARD. whether the Board has jurisdiction to consider the matter.
 Carrier contends that the original claim was filed in July,
 1967, declined by Carrier's highest designated officer in
 October, 1967, and the Organization abandoned the progression of the claim
 for approximately seven years. Under the circumstances, Carrier further
 asserts, this Board has no jurisdiction to consider the merits of the claim
                                                A


                      -2-


by virtue of the mandate of the dandling of Claims or Grievances )rocedures±/'q00 of the February y, 1965 Agreement as they relate to Article VI, Section 13 of the schedule agreement. The pertinent portion of Section 13 provides:

            "[A]11 claims or grievances involved in such decision shall be barred and deemed to have been abandoned unless within six (6) months from date of said officer's decision proceed- ings are instituted before a tribunal of competent jurisdiction established by law or agreement to secure a determination or adjudication of the rights of the parties." (Underscoring added).


      By letter dated July 24, 1967, the Organization's General Chairman

filed a time claim wit;i Carrier on behalf of a number of employees including
 this Claimant. The letter read in part, as follows:
 "Please consider this as a Time Claim
 filed on behalf of each of the employees
 listed in Exhibit 'A' attached hereto, that
 they be paid the difference between what
 they have received in compensation from
 your Carrier and the amount they were ini
 tially guaranteed under the February 7, 1965 Vwf
 Agreement, for each month beginning with the
 month within which your Carrier contends they
 lost their protected status under the Agree-
            ment. (Underscoring added).


Subsequently, by letter dated October 2, 1967, Carrier denied the Organization's claim contending that the employees lost their protected status by failing to comply with the provisions of Article II, Section 1 of the February 7, 1955 Agreement.

 "Rules and procedures governing the handling of claims or grievances including time limit rules, shall not apply to the handling of questions or disputes concerning the meaning or interpretation of the provisions of the February 7, 1965 Agreement. Such questions or disputes may be handled at any time and may be taken up directly between the General Chairman and the highest operating, officer of the carrier designated to handle such matters.

 Individual claims for compensation alleged to be due pursuant to the Agreement shall be handled in accordance with the rules governing the handling of claims and grievances, including time limit rules, providing that the time limit on claims involving an interpretation of the Agreement shall not begin to run until 30 days after the interpretation is rendered."
 On April 9, 1974, the Organization filed another claim on behalf of Claimant requesting that he be restored to full protection under the February 7, 1965 Agreement, and that he be compensated for monies lost as a result of his removal from protected status. The period of compensation (as reflected in Part 2 of the Questions at issue) is for .January 1974 and subsequent months.

 The Organization takes the position that Claimant was never personally notified that he had lost his protected status, had filed no time slips, and the Organization's letter of July 24, 1967, was merely a general assertion of a claim and has no*Wect on Claimant's rights to be compensated as a protected employee.

 Prior awards of this Board as well as those of the National Railroad Adjustment Board compel the conclusion that we have no jurisdiction to consider either the other procedural issues or the merits of this dispute.

      In Award No. 384, this Board held:


        "The question as to the merits of this dispute was earlier presented to this Board in Case No. H&RE-1-SE. The Board declined to consider the merits, and, in our Award No. 357, dismissed the claim because the time limit provisions were not complied with.


        The identical claim was filed in both cases except that the claim in this dispute included later dates of claim for compensation.


        The Organization essentially argues that it should be allowed to have the merits determined in a claim that was timely filed, and should not be prevented from doing so by virtue of a previous claim that was dismissed because of time limits.


        Consistent with the large majority of awards emanating from various forums in the railroad industry, the Board is constrained to find that the Organization's contention is without merit. In our award No. 353, we held:


            'Numerous awards of the various divisions of the National Railroad Adjustment Board have considered and interpreted Time Limit rules with uniform conclusion: Once a claim is filed, whether a continuing claim or not, proceedings


**~ The Organization argues that the compensation period beginning in
 January, 1974, was proper in that his claim arose at that time as a re
 sult of Amtrak's taking over Carrier's passenger service. Prior to this
 time, it contends, Claimant suffered no loss.
 must be instituted within nine months after the claim is denied by Carrier's highest designated officer. Otherwise the Board is without jurisdiction to consider the substantive issues of the claim.'

 The refiling of an identical claim between the same parties and the same claimants does not revive the claim or revest this Board with jurisdiction."

 In Award No. 310, this Board found:

 "The salient issue in this dispute may be stated as follows: If a claim is made regarding the meaning or interpretation is taken up with the highest officer, can a related and ancillary compensation claim be also considered directly with the highest officer without being subject to the time limit and other rules governing the handling of grievances.

 The Board holds that it cannot.

 To hold that the filing of a claim for an interpretation of the provisions of the February 7 Agreement would waive the requirement of timely processing of related compensation claims would render the Interpretations regarding HANDLING OF CLAIMS OR GRIEVANCES meaningless. As was stated in our Award No. 131: 'Practically, there is no reason why a money claim, whether or not it requires an interpretation of the Agreement, should not be filed in accordance with the rules, *** .'

 See also Award Nos. 325 and 357 of this Board; Third Division Award Nos. 13623 and 17030; Second Division Award No. 2177.

 Claim dismissed.

 ,Jv"(" _t

 Nicholas 11. r

 Dated: Washington, D. C.
      December 18, 1974