.i .






























Form 1 Award No. 9336
 Page 2 . Docket No. 92+2-T
 2-NRPC-EW-'83

 contained is the Agreement entered into by and between the Pennsylvania Railroad Company and System Federation No. 152 effective April 9, 1952.















According to the Organization, the removal of air conditioning units is clearly covered under the Classification of Work Rule. Thus, the Organization asserts that it is not incumbent upon it to prove that this work was traditionally performed by Electricians. Since the rule is specific as to this type of work, it insists that the custom or practice on the property is irrelevant. Thus, in the Organization's view, the work specifically belongs to members of the unit by the very language of the Agreement.

 In addition, the Organization contends that its claim was untimely denied by Carrier on two separate occasions, in violation of Rule 24(b) of the Agreement.
 Form 1 Award No. 9336
 page 3 Docket No. 92Zt2-T
 2-NRPC-EW-183
 That rule provides:

According to the Organization, the claim was filed on March 19, 1979 and denied on May 21, 1979, more than sixty days after it was filed. In addition, the Organization appealed Carrier's Facility Manager's decision on may 31, 1979. That appeal was denied by W. W. Sales, Jr., Regional Manager of Iabor Relations,, on August 22, 1979, again more than sixty days after the appeal was filed.

 Thus, in the Organization's view, Carrier has twice violated the sixty day requirement of Rule 24(b). Accordingly, the claim should be sustained on procedural as well as substantive grounds.

 Carrier, on the other hand, denies that any procedural or substantive violation of the Agreement exists. As to timeliness, it asserts that it acted in conformity with the Agreement as well as in the spirit of harmonious labor relations' policy. It ~notes that it did not receive Claimant's time claim (dated March 19, 1979) until April 19, 1979. Thus, its answer on May 21, 1879 was well within the sixty day limit of Rule 24(b).

 As to the alleged late response of W. W. Sales, Jr., Carrier asserts that it and the Organization agreed to docket the claim for conference to be held on June 19, 1979. When the Organization indicated it was not prepared to consider the claim on that date, W. W. Sales informed the Organization that he would be willing to discuss the claims upon his return to the Albany/Rensselaer facility in July or August of 1979. As soon as he realized that he would not be returning to the area in July or August, he wrote to the Organization suggesting an additional extension of time limits so that the parties could meet to discuss the claim. Upon receipt of the Organization's letter of August 8, 1979 alleging that Carrier had not timely responded to its May 31, 1979 appeal, Carrier promptly answered on August 14, 1979 wherein it denied the Organization's claim.

 Thus, in Carrier's view, it attempted to schedule a conference on the claim well within the sixty day time limit. When the Organization was not prepared to go forward, Carrier suggested alternate dates. Accordingly, Carrier argues that the Organization should, in effect, be barred from asserting that Carrier's August 14, 1979 response was untimely, since Carrier relied upon the Organization's word and good faith in assuming that a conference would be held before a decision on the Organization's earlier appeal was made.

 As to the merits of the claim, Carrier asserts that there is no specific rule which reserves to Electricians the right to remove air conditioning equipment. Since no such rule exists, the Organization must prove that this
 Form 1 Award No. 9336
 Page 4 Docket No. 92+2-T
 2-NRPC-EW-183

 work has been traditionally performed by Electricians. This the Organization has not proven. According to Carrier, while Electricians have traditionally performed electrical work on air conditioning units, removal of these units has traditionally been performed by Carmen.

As to the issue of timeliness, we find that Carrier acted properly and in accordance with Rule 24(b). Carrier's original denial must be made within sixty days that the claim was filed pursuant to Rule 24(a) and not sixty days from date of appeal, as required by 21+(b). The Organization's claim is dated March 19, 1979 Carrier's receipt stamp shows that it was received by "Amtrak'; Supt Office" on April 19, 1979. The Organization has not shown that the receipt date was improperly recorded and neither side has offered an explanation for the apparent one month delay from the date the claim was originated to the date it was received by Carrier. Nonetheless, the term "60 days from the date same is filed" indicates that a "filing" with Carrier must have taken place. Since Carrier received the claim on April 21, 1979, the claim could not have been filed before that date, though it was originated a month prior. Thus, the claim was answered within sixty days of its filing.

 In addition, W. W. Sales' denial on August 14, 1979 of the Organization's appeal dated May 31, 1979 was also timely and in conformance with Rule 24(b). The record e-Adence reveals that Sales delayed his written response because the Organization requested a conference on the claim. That the conference was not a scheduled grievance meeting (see Organization's letter of August 8, 1979) is irrelevant. Carrier relied upon Organization's desire to discuss this and other claims. Thus, the Organization is now estopped from claiming that Carrier's denial of its appeal was untimely when it caused the delay at issue.

 As to the merits of the claim, we conclude that the Organization misinterprets the Classification of Work Rule which it cites in support of its contention. That rule does not state nor imply that Electricians' work consists of "removing air conditioning equipment". Rather, the Rule provides that Electricians' work consists of removing generators, switches, etc. It also provides that Electricians' work consists of Electrical Work on air conditioning equipment. The issue here is the removal (not electrical work) of the air conditioning (HVAC) unit on PC 154. Carrier does not deny that electrical work on PC 154 belongs to Electricians. Such work would clearly be theirs. Rather, it argues that removal of such units have traditionally been performed by Carmen.

 Since the Classification of Work Rule does not specifically cover the circumstances of this case, the burden falls to the Organization to prove that this work has been customarily performed by members of the Electricians' craft. There is no record evidence to this effect. Accordingly, the claim must be denied on its merits as well as an the procedural grounds presented.
 F or m 1
 Page 5

 A W A R D
Claim denied.

 Attests Acting Executive Secretary
 National Railroad Adjustment Board

 Award No. 9336-T
 Docket No. 92+2-T
 2-NRPC-EW-183

NATiONAh RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

By Order of Second Division


By / ~C .C.·i~ ~f~

Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 5th day of January, 1983.