Form 1 NATIONAL RAI7ROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 9337
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 92+3-T
 2-NRPC-EW-'83
 The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Martin F. Scheinman when award was rendered.
 ( International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
 Parties to Dispute:
 ( National Railroad Passenger Corporation

 Dispute: Claim of Employes: .

 1. That the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) violated
 the procedural provisions of Rule 24(b) of the current Agreement, as
 amended, effective September 1, 195 by failing to render a decision in
 writing on Employes' Claim filed G-39 within the prescribed time
 limits.
 2. That the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) also violated
 Rule 1 of the current Agreement effective September 1, 1975, as amended,
 the Implementing Agreement of July 8, 1976 and the Electrical Workers
 Classification of Work Rule effective October 15, 1900 as contained in
 the Agreement entered into by and between the Pennsylvania Railroad
 Company and System Federation No. 152 effective April 1, 1952, when
 on March 19, 1979 other than Electrical Workers were assigned to
 perform Electricians' work of installing air conditioning equipment
 at Carrier's Rensselaer Passenger Station in New York.
 3. That accordingly, the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak)
 be ordered to compensate Electrician G. E. Gathen four (4) hours at
 the pro rata 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 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.

This dispute results from Carrier's assignment to two Carmen the removal of the H.V.A.C. unit (Heat-Ventillation-Air Conditioning) from Power Coach No. 154 at its Albany/Rensselaer, New York facility on March 19, 1979. The Organization contends that the work should have been performed by its members.

 The Organization contends that the disputed assignment should have been performed by Electricians in accordance with Rule 1 of the current Agreement between the parties; the Implementing Agreement of July 8, 1976 and the Electrical
 Form 1 Award No. 9337
 Page 2 Docket No. 9243-T
 2-NRPC-EW-183

 Workers Classification of Work Rule effective October 15, 1960 as contained in the Agreement entered into by and between the Pennsylvania Railroad Company and System Federation No. 152 effective April 9, 1952.





In the Organization's view, the removal of air conditioning units is clearly covered under the Classification of Work Rule. Since the rule is specific as to this type of work, all removal of H.V.A.C. units belongs to Electricians by the very language of the Agreement.

 In addition, the Organization contends that its claim was untimely denied in two separate stages on the property, in violation of Rule 24(b) of the Agreement.. That rule provides:

According to the Organization, this claim was filed on March 19, 1979 and denied on May 21, 1979, mare than sixty days after filing. In addition, the Organization appealed Carrier's Facility Manager's decision on May 31, 1979. That appeal was denied by the Regional Manager of Labor 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).

 Carrier, on the other hand, maintains that its denials of the claim were made in timely fashion. It notes that the original claim was not received until April 19, 1979· Thus, its answer on May 21, 1979 was well within the sixty day limit. Second, its the response of the Regional Manager of Labor Relations was made within sixty days of Organization's letter of August 8, 1979, wherein the Organization contended that Carrier has not timely responded to its May 31,
 1979 appeal.Until August 8, 1979 Carrier had been led to believe that the
 Form 1 Award No. 9337
 Page 3 Docket No. 92+3-T
 2-NRPC-EW-183

 Organization desired to docket the claim for a conference. When it learned that the Organization no longer wished to discuss the claim, Carrier promptly issued its denial of the Organization's appeal.

 On the merits of the claim, Carrier asserts that there is no specific rule which reserves to Electricians the right to remove air conditioning equipment. Thus, the Organization must show that this work has traditionally been performed by Electricians. In fact, Carmen have customarily revved air conditioning units from power coaches. Therefore, according to Carrier, the work in question does not belong to Electricians and the claim should be denied.

 The facts in this case are identical with those in the companion case, Award No. 9336, decided herewith and issued this same date. In that case,

 we found that Carrier had not violated either the substantive or procedural rights of the Organization. For the reasons set forth therein, we deny the claim.






Attest; Acting Executive Secretary
        National Railroad Adjustment Board _


By ~
 emarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant

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