Fore 1 Page 3
Award No. 6749
 Docket No. 6533
 2-LM-SM-' 74

 AWARD

 Claim No. 1 - Sustained

 Claim No. 2 - Denied .

NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJU9TMEW HOARD

By Order of Second Division


Attest: Executive Secretary
 National Railroad Adjustment Hoard

 emsrie Branch - nistrative Assistant

 Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 30th day of July, 1974.
 ,moo ..
 f Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJLE TMENT BOARD Award No. 6750
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 6535
 L&N-SM-' 74
 The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Irving T. Bergman when award was rendered.

        Parties to. Dispute:


                        {

                        ( Louisville sad Nashville Railroad Company ,


        Dispute: Claim of Employer:


            1. That the Carrier violated the current controlling agreement, .

                particularly Rule 87 and Proposal 7(A), at Nashville, Tennessee:,

                when they improperly assigned Electricians and Carmen the

                duty of installing No Smoking signs and Ansul Fire Extingui sher

                signs at fueling pits, Engineer's wash room building. Union

                Station, shop parking lots and Roundhouse walls on June 30,

                JAY 2. 15r 29i 1971.


    2. That accordingly the Carrier be ordered to additicnally

    compensate Sheet Metal Workers Martin Logan., J. L. Robertson,

    y R. E. Walsh, W. E. Hasty, W. R. Grundy and D. B. Garland in

    the.amount of two (2) hours and forty (40) minutes each at

    the punitive rate of pay.

    Findings:

    The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record

    and all the evidence, finds that:.

    The carrier or carriers and the employs or employes involved in

    this dispute are respectively carrier and employs within the meaning

    of the Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 1934.

    This Division op the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the

    dispute involved herein.

    Parties to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing thereon.

    On June 30, July 2, 15, 29, 1971, "No Smoking" and "Fire Extinguisher"

    signs of 22 gauge metal were placed on walls and posts at several

    locations. The work was done by carmen and electricians who were

    available. The signs were purchased from a local concern.


..
 Form 1 Award No. 6750
 Page 2 Docket No. 6535
 2-L&N-SM-' 74

 The Organization claims the work under Rule 87 of the Agreement, the relevant portion of which states: "---tinning, --- in shops, yards, buildings ---; The---, erecting, installing, --- parts made of sheet metal --- of 10 gauge or lighter ---."

 Before discussing the merits of the claim, we shall consider the procedural question raised by the Carrier, namely: That the claim was not received in writing by the office of the Carrier authorized to receive ~ it within sixty days from the date of the occurrence on which the claim is based. This is, in substance, a requirement of Proposal 7A cited by the Organization in its Submission. Proposal 7A goes on to state, in substance, that if the Carrier shall not notify whoever filed the claim that it has bees disallowed, in writing, that the claim shall be allowed as presented.

 The Organization contends that it deposited the claim in writing in a basket provided for that purpose on August lT, 1971, within the sixty day period allowed for filing the claim. By letter dated November 2, 1971, the Local Chairman notified the General Foreman that no answer was received within sixty days; therefore the claim should be allowed as pxesented.

    The General Foreman denied that he received the claim in writing.


He did recall that the Local Chairman had been in his office early in _

 August to discuss the claim and that he did not agree that the work
 belonged to the Sheet Metal workers. However, when the claim was
 appealed to the Master Mechpnic., he stated by letter dated November 12,
 1971, that the claim be submitted in writing personally to the General
 Foreman, otherwise the claim is declined because it was not presented
 within the sixty day time limit. This suggestion was not accepted by
 the Local Chairtaea because there was no agreement which required delivery
 in person. In a letter dated January 5, 19T2, to the Chief Mechanical
 Officer from the General Chairman, the claim was appealed further, noting
 that the Master Mechanic in his suggestion to resubmit the claim is
 writing did not extend the tame limit to refile the claim. In his
 answer to the General Chairman dated January 26, 19't2, the Chief Mechanical
 Officer removed any doubt about the application of time limits by stating:
 "In view of the uncertainty about. the claim, we are agreeable to handle
 the claim on the basis of any possible merit it may have, if you are
 also agreeable to such handling please advise, if not, we must insist
 that as we did not receive a claim within the time limit, etc... that no
 monetary claim can be considered as legitimate." In his letter dated
 March 17, 1972, the General Chairmen "rejected" the "decision of the
 Chief Mechanical Officer, and appealed to the next higher officer.

      i

/ , .__ e
      Form 1 Award No. 6750

      Page 3 - Docket No. 6535

      2-LBN-SM-' 74


      In its Rebuttal,~the Organization argued that the General Foreman did not answer the claim in the first instance because he knew it was legitimate, and that it was a weak excuse to say that he did not receive the claim in writing. This does not gibe with the fact that the General Foreman denied the claim in discussion with the Local Chairman, letter dated November 8, 1971. It mould be dust as arguable to say that the Organization insists that the claim be granted as presented (no written disa3lowaace having bees received within sixty days) because the claim was not legitimate. In fact, the Carrier twice offered to consider the claim on its merits but the Organization declined, evidently preferring to win by default.


      Prior Awards have decided, in substance, that although a written document is forwarded through a usual channel for delivery.. if receipt of the document is denied, the hordes is on the party claiming delivery to prove that it was received, Second Division Award No. 3653, Third Division Awards 11575, 1+695, 10173, 11505, 14354, 15395, 1596· Third Division Award 11568, it was stated: "The hordes it mutual. Not only must the griever adequately prove presentation of his claim, but should the same be denied, the Carrier must also adequately prove notification of denial. To allow a claim without a consideration of the merits, on a presumption that a letter containing the claim was delivered, when the receipt has been denied, could create chaos."


      The present case falls within the reasoning of the above Awards. The Local Chairman stated that he placed the written claim in a basket designated for that purpose but the General Forman denied receipt. The Record has no further proof of delivery and receipt. Furthermore, when. the Carrier,pacoposed personal delivery to assure receipt of the claim to be considered on the merits, and thereafter offered to consider the claim on the merits regardless of the issue of receipt, the Organization rejected this opportunity to consider the claim on its merits.


      Under these circumstances, and because of the reasoning of the Awards cited above, with which we agree, the claim should not be allayed as presented, nor may it be considered on its merits.


                          A W A R D


          Claim Dismissed.


f` i, ~,,i
        Form 1 Award No. 6750

        Page 4 Docket No. 6535

        2-L8N-SM-' 74

        NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

        By Order of Second Division

        Attest: Executive Secretary

              National Railroad Adjustment Board


. By
            semarie Brasch - AAministrative Assistant


        Dated at Chicago, Illinois this 30th day of, July, 1974.


·_rI ,