Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 9198
SECOND DIVISION Docket No.
8865-T
2-C&NW-CM-'82
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Carlton R. Sickles when award was rendered.
( Brotherhood Railway Carmen of the United States
Parties to Dispute: ( and Canada
~ Chicago and North Western Transportation Company
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
1. That the Chicago and North Western Transportation Company violated
Article V of the August
21, 195+
Agreement when Director of Labor
Relations Fremon failed to give written reasons for denial of General
Chairman Murphy's appeal dated August
22, 1979.
2.
Carmen J. W. Kreuser, A. D. Lamine, M. M. Beernsteen, and G. J. Verkler,
Green Bay, Wisconsin, were denied their contractual rights when the
Chicago and North Western Transportation Company assigned mechanics-in~-
charge to perform emergency road work.
3.
That the Chicago and North Western Transportation Company be ordered to
compensate Carmen Kreuser, Iamine, Beernsteen, and Verkler as follows:
J. W. Kreuser: Eleven and one-half hours at time and
one-half for March
29, 1979.
A. D. hamine: Seven hours at time and one-half for
March
30, 1979.
M. M. Beernsteen: Seven hours at time and one-half for
March
28, 1979.
G. J. Vernkler: Six hours at time and one-half for
April 2,
1979.
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.
Parties to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing thereon.
A procedural issue has been raised by the organization, namely, that the
alleged letter of denial executed by the Director of Labor Relations on October
17, 1979 in response to the organization's appeal of August 22 was not complete as
Form 1
Page 2
required by Article V (1) of the agreement between the parties.
The letter of October
17, 1979
was supplemented by further letter of February
19, 1980.
The organization alleges that the carrier did not effectively deny the
claims until the February letter which was beyond the sixty (60) day time limit
permitted by the agreement.
The applicable portion of the October
17, 1979
letter is as follows:
Award No. 9198
Docket No.
8865-T
2-C&rlw-cm-' 82
"At the present time, my file is incomplete and I am unable to
respond to all the information contained in your appeal letter.
At such time as I am in possession of all the facts, I shall
write you again. In the meantime, in order to comply with the
time limit, please consider the claims denied for lack of
support of schedule Rules and agreements."
A review of the Awards indicate that this Board has been liberal in its
determining the efficacy of a denial of a claim for purposes of complying with
Article V (a). Nevertheless, in this instance it is apparent that there is no
basis set out for the denial in the carrier's letter. A reading of the paragraph
set out above, in its entirety, confirms that the denial therein is merely pro forma
with reference to the schedules and agreements merely as an attempt to comply
with the contractual time limit. While in some instances the denial of a claim
merely for
lack of support of schedule Rules or agreements may be satisfactory,
to use this in basis for denial in light of the alleged ignorance of sufficient
basis to deny the claim would make a mockery of the contractual requirement and
we shall support the claims based upon this procedural defect.
A W A R D
Claims sustained.
Attest: Acting Executive Secretary
ional Railroad Adjustment Board
By~
s~
,,./~c~semarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant
Dated, at Chicago, Illinois, this 22nd day of July, 1982.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division