claim in a timely manner. Rule 36(a) provides in pertinent part that:

"Should any such claim or grievance be disallowed, the Carrier shall, within 60 days from the date same is filed, notify whoever filed the claim or grievance (the employee or his representative) in writing of the reasons for such disallowance. If not so notified, the claim or grievance shall be allowed as presented, but this shall not be considered as a precedent or waiver of the contentions of the Carrier as to other similar claims or grievances."

Form is being placed over substance. The purpose of Rule 36(a) is to ensure that each side has adequate notice of the position of the other and that a claim cannot be held indefinitely without answer by a carrier. Here the Carrier had taken action against Claimant and it was he who was claiming that action to be erroneous. Claimant was not disadvantaged by the delay except to the extent that the decision of the Hearing officer that he be discharged was not finalized by the highest designated Carrier, official. Carrier concedes that Claimant might be entitled to damages between the time the claim should have been answered and. the date it was answered. Carrier is directed to pay Claimant for that period, i.e., for the time lost between March 25, 1990 ands April 2, 1990.

Claimant was discharged after a Hearing at which it was found that he had appeared intoxicated at work and been unable to properly perform his duties. Claimant denied that he had consumed alcoholic beverages on company premises or had alcohol in his possession. He denied being intoxicated; however, Carrier. officials testified to the contrary and Claimant did not request a blood alcohol test to prove his innocence after having been found sitting at a table in the locker room 20 minutes after having been directed to go to work. In addition, Claimant admitted at the times of the incident that a bottle of alcohol in a locker next to his was his bottle. The fact that he later denied making that: statement creates an issue of credibility which must be decided by the Hearing Officer and not this Board. There was adequate evidence to support the finding of the Hearing Officer and the action of the Carrier is affirmed.

A W A R D