?AAT=. Brotherhood of uaintenancs of clay Employee
 TO
 V:3iVCS The ntchison, Topeka and Santa ?e tailxay ~_ampany
 3T.1T=%dNT
 c,? :L_~I:~ "Claim that former System ?low Gang (~roup 11,
 Class 2) employe ~?arrv T. Dawes be reinstated
 to service with seniority, vacation, all tenefit
 rights, pay for wage loss and/or otherwise made
 whole, account the claimant's name being improperly
 removed from the seniority roster for failure to
 respond to recall."
 FINDINGS Upon the whole record the Board finds that the parties
 herein are Carrier and Ymployes within the meaning of the .cailvay
 Labor act, as amended, and that this Board is duly constituted under
 Public Lar 89-·!56 and has jurisdiction of the parties and the subject
 matter.
 The Claimant eras a furloughed employs subject to recall to service. In a letter dated March 26, 1981, Claimant was adviseds
            "In accordance with article 2, Section (c), you

            are being recalled to service at ~-!armon, New ;aexico on the Albuquerque Division effective Vril 13, 1981. Please report to !~:araon, hew ^.exico on April 13, 7982 at 700 due. There will be no chartered buses. If you need a ride, you must notify this office by April 9, otherwise you will have to provide your own way.


            failure to report as indicated above will result in loss of seniority. Please ac)movledgo this letter when copy is received by contacting the Lbployment Office at (505) 868-5061 immediately:'


Claimant failed to report on April 13, 1981, as directed. In a letter dated April 21, 1981, (certified mail :1475204-Return Receipt Requested) Claimant vas adviseda
                                        Award ho. 10 ' 33~g Page No. 2


            "-A.s a result of your failure to report wit:in fifteen (15) days after recall for assimument at Marmon, New Mexico, in accordance with .tale 2, Section (c), you are being dropped from the Group 11, Class 2, System Plow sang seniority roster with forfeiture of seniority rights."

That portion of Rule 2, Section (c), pertinent to the dispute at hand reads:

            "Failure to rsest any of the requirements as above spQuified, failure to report on the date indicated in the notification of recall, not to exceed fifteen (15) calendar days from date of notificatiun of recall forwarded to the employe's last lfe.nown address, without a satisfactory reason, will result in forfeiture of seniority in the class where recalled."

rho record reveals that Claimant's General Chairman received a copy of than above quoted letter dated April 21, 1981.
 In a letter dated June 23, 1981, the Organisation initiated the dispute which is new before this Board.
 The carrier, in its initial letter of dial and throughout the handling on the property, maintained that the dispute was not timely filed in accordance with the provisions of :Pule 14, Section (a) reading in parts
            "(a) all claims or grievances aunt be presented

' in writing by or on behalf of the employs
            involved, to the officer of the Company authorised

            to receive same, within sixty (60) days from the

            data of the occurrence on which the claim or

            grievance is based xaCS."

The Organisation aaintiins that the tine limit was not violated for the reason thats
            "The date hr. Oaws signed the receipt for the

                                        PLB - 3308

                                        Award No. 10

                                        Page No. 3


            letter would be the date of the occurrence on which our claim and grievance was based."

The Hoard holds that the date on which the time limit began to run, in the instarm now before it, was the date of Carrier's letter dated April 21, 1981. however, even if the Doard follows the thinking of the organization the time limit would have expired on June 21, 1981. Since the dispute was not initiated with the Carrier until the Organization's letter of June 23, 1901, it was still beyond the sixty (60) day requirement of the Agreement.
 We find Carrier's procedural objection well founded. Zince the
 record establishes the fact of the procedural flaw charged oy Carrier,
 we must take note of it, :re cannot properly ignore or refuse to
 enforce valid objections because they are of a technical nature.
 Many decisions of various Divisions of the National aailroad AAjustment Soard have held that we are without jurisdiction to hear claims and/or grievances which have not been presented and/or progressed in accordance with contractually imposed time limits. it is true that the strict application of such a rule may preclude us from considering a claim on its merits and this may not help the day-today relations of the parties. Nevertheless, the parties themselves, by the terns of the negotiated agreement have indicated their intentions regarding the timely suLsiissions of claims and/or grievances.
 Per the reasons herainabove stated, we are precluded from considering the meritsf the claim must be dismissed.
      Even it we were able to consider the merits, the claim is without

£E6T ' ZZ Izrnzqaa
 ODBJTq' .p naqLQ

 ·pasrFmsTp mTe2~ R?TVuH

 ·~,4T=oFues sTst pa'zrax=o;

 au °pai-Taads se -4xodas ol PeTTe> au uaqe·, ·eTlu ash go 4uaixxsmba=

    atT; saptzr asom so cFrg uas4rt3 std paKOTTe !qotqx `a4Eg aT~T-12dr


      P uo :sodas oz pazFnhaz SEA -4uEmtEZ:, auk. ·-42oddns auauass5v


          · Ow; 8B

1
 SC3EE-OT 'o.· pser