AWARDS 117 - NOTICE OF INTENT TO BOARD MUST BE WITHIN TIME LIMITS OF AGREEMENT

First Division Award No. 24132 (Fletcher)

"The August 15, 1990, Notice of Intent was clearly beyond one year beyond the date of the Carrier's October 17, 1988 decision letter in this matter. As such it was out of time by the explicit language of Rule 20 h and the claim must be considered as `invalid' as required by the language of the Rule. The matter will be dismissed."

Third Division Award No. 29231 (Fredenberger)

"The Carrier also maintains that the Claim in this case is untimely under Rule 36(c) of the Agreement, which bars all Claims not brought before the appropriate Division of the Board within nine months from the date of the denial of the Claim by the highest designated officer of the Carrier. The Carrier's Vice President - Engineering, the highest officer designated to handle the type of Claim involved in this case, denied the Claim on January 16, 1987. The notice to the Board of intent to file the Claim was dated December 21, 1987. Accordingly, the notice did not comply with Rule 36(c). This Board consistently has held that a Claim which is not handled on the property within the time limits of the applicable schedule Agreement is barred from consideration by this Board. See Third Division Awards 27663, 27502, 24694, 22133 and 22075.

"In view of the foregoing we must conclude that the Board lacks jurisdiction over this claim."

Second Division Award No. 12344 (Fletcher)

"Notwithstanding the fact that Carrier's response to the initial Claim may have been argued to be untimely, the Claim was in fact denied by Carrier on March 23, 1989. This denial triggered the clock for appeal off the property. The Organization had nine months from that date, by the explicit language of Rule 29, to institute proceedings before this Board. Proceedings were not commenced until January 11, 1990, which date is beyond nine months from the date of denial. Accordingly, the appeal to this Board is procedurally defective. This defect precludes the Board from any consideration of either the merits of the Claim or the Organization's contentions on an earlier time limit default on the part of the Carrier."

Third Division Award No. 29572 (Mason)

"In this case, the highest designated officer of the Carrier denied the claim on June 26, 1990. The claim was not instituted with this Board until April 17, 1991, which exceeds the nine month period allowed by Rule 52(a)3. Therefore, this claim is barred and must be dismissed for that reason."

Third Division Award No. 30132 (Vernon)

"The Petitioner then filed a notice with the Board on January 13, 1990.

"It is readily apparent that the claim must be dismissed. In addition to serious questions as to whether the claim was filed in a timely manner in the first instance, there is the matter of the matter not being appealed to the Board within nine months of the denial by the Assistant to the Vice President as required by Rule 54. The nine month time limit expired December 2, 1989. The rules of the Board require that for us to have jurisdiction, the claim must have been handled in accordance with the Agreement.

***

"Claim dismissed."

First Division Award No. 24401 (Goldstein)

"In October, 1988, the General Chairman informed the Carrier by letter that the Organization intended to submit the instant matter to the Board for adjudication at a later date. The letter requested that Carrier advise the General Chairman of its 'final position' on this case. On October 25, 1988, Carrier responded that there would be no change in its position. The claim was subsequently progressed to the Board on July 9, 1991, when notice was served of the Organization's intent to file an Ex Parte Submission in the case.

"The parties' Agreement, at Article XIII, Section 9 (e) states:

"'(e) . . .All claims or grievances involved in a decision of the highest officer shall be barred unless within six months from the date of said officer's decision proceedings are instituted by the employee or his duly authorized representative before a tribunal having jurisdiction pursuant to law or agreement of the claim or grievance involved."

"Proceedings in this matter were not instituted until July 9, 1991, more than four years after the decision of Carrier's highest designated appeals officer to deny the Organization's appeal, and nearly three years after Carrier's written notice of refusal to give favorable consideration to the Organization's subsequent requests for leniency reinstatement.

"Under the terms of Article XIII, Section 9 (e), the Organization failed to timely institute proceedings before a tribunal and therefore the claim is barred by the time limitations in the Agreement."

Third Division Award No. 29862 (Eischen)

"On June 12, 1990, the Organization appealed the decision on behalf of both Price and the Claimant. Carrier denied the claim and no further appeal was taken by the Claimant until August 27, 1991, some 14 months after Carrier's declination of the claim. At that time, Claimant submitted the issue to the Board for adjudication. According to Rule 54 (c):

"'All claims or grievances involved in a decision by the highest designated officer shall be barred unless within nine months from the date of said officer's decision proceedings as instituted by the employe or his duly authorized representative before the appropriate division of the National Railroad Adjustment Board....'

"Clearly, Claimant's appeal dated August 27, 1991 extended well beyond the nine month limit as called for by Rule 54 (c) and is barred by the forfeiture language of that Rule. Thus, this Board is without recourse except to dismiss the appeal due to lack of jurisdiction to address the merits of this claim. See Third Division Awards 28194, 28043, 26948, 22133 and 22075."

Third Division Award No. 29871 (Fletcher)

"The Claim that Petitioner brings to this Board was denied by Carrier's General Manager Operations and Maintenance by letter dated May 31, 1991. Petitioner did not bring this denial to the Board until April 14, 1992. Rule 28-2 of the Agreement requires that appeals to this Board be instituted within nine months of the date of the General Manager's denial. Failure of Petitioner to lodge an appeal within that time denies the Board jurisdiction and precludes consideration of the merits of the Claim or an allegation that Carrier had earlier defaulted on time limits.

"The Board has no alternative, but to dismiss the Claim because it was not timely appealed, as required by Rule 28-2."

Third Division Award No. 30917 (McAllister)

"By letter dated December 27, 1991, the Claimant served notice of his intention to appeal the Carrier's denial. Rule 26(d) of the Agreement requires such an appeal to be made within nine months from '. . . the date of the decision of the Senior Director - Labor Relations.' It is all too obvious the Claimant's appeal did not comply with this specific provision. An appeal to the Board had to be filed no later than June 19, 1989. The claim must be dismissed.

"See First Division Award 24132, Second Division Award 12344, and Third Division Award 25326."