Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADjUM~ET BOAF,D Award No.
8125
SECOND DIVISION Docket No.
7959
2 -1qP-CM-'
79
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee George S. Roukis when award was rendered.
( System Federation No. 10, Railway Employes'
( Department, A. F. of L. - C. I. 0.
Parties to Dispute: ( (Carmen)
( Western Pacific Railroad Co:-apany
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
1. That the Western Pacific Railroad Company violated the terrLs of
the controlling agreement when Mlaster Mechanic R. L. Mlillhiser
did. not make reply to -1',ocal Chairman Churchill's claim dated
February
'T, 1977,
until.. April
13, 1977,
Which is sixty-five
days after date said claim was
filed.
2. That under the teirs oi' the contrc~I_ina,greennent, Carmen ~~T. V.
Paulson and =', ~''^=_~r~02'i were
t1~1.'li.',.:~,7~
d:i
3':_.t.SSv'.'1.
frorl the .Service
of the V:estarn Pacific ,ailroau Co,p any by letters dated
January
27, 1977.
3.
That accord4_n-ly , the Carrier be ordered to i-.,a]re Car-men 11. V.
Paulson and '. --wrkerson -;hol e b co:-r~n:~ta.~.r t~ex.^_ for all time
lost from -Pecenaer
2, 1976
until retuirned to · service on Y~iy 20,
1977.
Finlings
The Second Division of the A-ijustment Board, ujhon the whole record and
all the evidence, finds that:
The carrier or carriers and the employe or employes involved in this
dispute are respec tivelv carrier and emolo~_re ul_thin the maning of the
Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 1o34.
This Division of the Adjustment Board 'has
jurisdiction over
the dispute
involved herein.
Parties to said dispute i~raived right of appearance at hearing thereon.
This Board has ca,:ef~zlly reviewed the detailed record submitted to
the Division and conclhdea that t.'~e ni·,roLal uuestion befog°e us is the st~tus
and significance of the F,:bruary
r'_3, 1978
settler:ent letter.
In t1ie 2nd and
3rd
caragraph of this docu:rent, carrier's Labor
Relation's Officer ·.rrctc~to the . h,. -eneral Chair:::wn that t'h z.-,,.,...s understood
that in full and final set-`,-,lY::_ent of th"L~:::_c_vlll~.~claiL:, clairants
would be allowed their T,,r-ame loss frcrl t'ta:? -:_e -,-he--- ·;,er~
a
s.:.ssed by letter
dated January
27, 1977
unt~_1 the claim ;;_ densc.d
ny
_._.;~e;~_ -chanic H. L.
Form 1
Page
2
Award No.
8125
Docket No,'
7959
2-WP-CM-'79
Millhiser by letter dated April
13, 1977.
This settlement is being made
solely because of the Company's failure to cuaply with the Time Limits of
Rule,
34."
It lvr-'s not challenged or disputed until %:ay
16, 1978.
While we recognize that a response requires, at times, a reasonable
period of thought and analysis .,re do not believe that waiting until '%lay
163
1978
comported with this requirement,
particularly
in view of -the fact that
the February
23, 1978
letter explicitly expressed a jointly agreed upon
disposition of the claim.
Claimants were under a more compelling obligation to take issue with
or deny the conference settlement terms rather than wait approximately twelve
(12)
weeks before responding. It -;as too long a period and was farther
compounded by claimants' chwnin; the claimed loss time date from January
27, 1977
-,s stated i n their l.uas';,
3, 1977
letter to Dec~:~,ber
2
and
3,
1976
respectively.
There is no int1:nat ion that the !'ebruaxy
23, 1978
letter sass tentative
or suggestive and every indication t1-.t it ~;`»s conclus:i.ve. Pased on these
findings, we iri11 deny the claim.
A W A F, !7
Claim denied.
Attest: Executive Secretary
National Eailroad Adjustr:?ent Board
ID%T1O,IAL R~,.ILRLQAD ADJUST'.ITIT BQKD
By order of Second D_1vision
J~
RoseL:ar:ie~Brasch - Aid::~Wi str::~ti. a
ANsis-Ga
nt
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 27th day of Sel.t.ember,
1979.