Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 8080
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 7722
 2-MP-EW-179



Parties to Dispute: ( (Electrical Workers)


Dispute: Claim of Employes:






Findings:

 The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that:

 The carrier or carriers and the employe or employes involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employe within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 193+.

 This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.

At the outset of our discussion on this ease, we feel it necessary to remark to both parties that their on the property handling of this dispute leaves much to be desired. For the union's part, they failed to state, during the handling of their claim on the property, any rule (other than the tie limit role) which they felt supported their claim before management, and also, after initially presenting what the union termed a grievance (in a letter dated February 10, 1976), subsequently amended this pure grievance on
 Form l Award No. $080
 Page 2 Docket No. 7722
 2-NP-EW-179

 April 15, 1976 to include a request fox compensation for named Claimants. On the Carrier's part, they failed to respond in writing to the union's letter of February 10, 1976 (although they did hold a meeting shortly after receipt of the letter to discuss the matter). So, as the case unfolds, it takes no imagination to project the claims and counter claims both sides have lodged against one another. Such conduct is hardly a model for employer-employee relations.

 The genesis of the dispute, as we see it, occurred on December 16, 1975 when Carrier took certain action rearranging the job assignments of shop electricians at North Little Rock, Arkansas. The union said nothing about this until February 10, 1976, when they wrote to Terminal Master Mechanic Daniels in a letter which, in stzmmvry, asked that "... you require Electrician Foreman B. J. Qualls to assign these men according to their job titles arid sen:iori_ty".

 Carrier held a meeting on r~arch 4, 1976 ,.,-ith the local committee, and, according to Carrier's version of wftat transpired at that meeting, all the issues were settled, This position z~ras maintained during the handling of the dispute through the highest officer, arid the un-ion submitted no evidence during on the property handlinc; countering Ca.rri.er's position, The union, however, does not agree with this position, and the local chairman states that he iralked out of the meeting abraptl~7, prior to any resolution of the matter, and that the other two cc7:,anittec=::.en had no right to reach a conclusion with the management on the issues since he, the local chairman, was not present. There are assertions and counter-assertions regarding the conduct of both parties at this meeting, but, suffice it to say that things never get settled in the spirit and intent of the Railway Ln_abo.o Act when representatives lose their temper and walk away from proble=ms. The Act requires that men of good faith negotiate in good faith to resolve their differences.

 Carrier, apparently believing the matter was settled, did not confirm the conference in writing and thus left the letter of February Z0, 1976 unanswered. Such a path was prestamptious on Carrier's part, for, as we have held in many previous awards, Carrier is obligated to respond to all letters which have the character of a claim or grievance within sixty (60) days. The fact that management agreed to meet with the union on this matter recognizes, at least tacitly, that management knew it was dealing with a grievance-related matter. Thus, we find Carrier violated the contract when they failed to answer the February 10, 1976 letter in writing as the contract requires.

 But, the union was equally guilty of mishandling under the agreement. Clearly, they could not amend their original grievance of February 10, 1976 on April 15, 1976 (more than sixty days from the initial presentation and genesis of the claim) to request compensation. Management is correct in asserting such action is improper, and consequently, we find the monetary claim improperly before us.
 Form 1 Award No. 8080
 Page 3 Docket Yo. 7722
 2-MP-Ew-'79

 We are faced with an unusual situation. On the one hand, we have a grievance (which must be allowed. as presented under the agreement) requiring that certain electricians be assigned to jobs in accordance with job titles and seniority. Management contends, and it was not rebutted successfully by the employer on the property, that such a request has been granted. On the other hand, the union has cited no rules, during the handling on the property, for us to evaluate (aside from the time limit rule), upon which to base an alleged contract breach.

 In light of the foregoing, we are going to remand this case to the parties and admonish them to again sit down in good faith and work out a solution to this problem, bearing in mind the foregoing conclusions. If, by haw, the issues involved in this dispute are moot (that is, conditions have been changed or corrected over the period during which this dispute has remained open), then certainly we cannot expect or require the parties to turn back tune over three years to rek3.nd7.e the situation which provoked the dispute. Any disputes about assigrnrents subsequent to the events on December 16, 1975 would he new and dif'f'erent disputes which would have required proper handling under the agreement and the Railway Labor Act. In ate. probability., we must conclude that the -.~ ssues here are now moot, and we again remind the parties that proper handling of ouch matters could have alleviated the situation we are here confronted with.




                          By Order of Second Division


Attest: Executive Secretary
 National Railroad Adjustment Board

By -~. C~

      osemarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant


Date at Chicago, Illinois, this 12th day of September, 1979.