THIRD DIVISION

(Supplemental)




PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYES CHICAGO & EASTERN ILLINOIS RAILROAD COMPANY


STATEbIENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:

(1) Carrier violated the agreement on October 30, 1956 when it assigned or otherwise permitted Supervisor H. Eldridge to deliver ditching machine No. 1 to Yard Center from Danville, using Truck No. H-69.



(3) That the claim presented by Mr. Simpson for five hours' pay at $3.27 per hour account of the violation referred to in Part (1) of this claim be allowed as presented because of Mr. Huffman's failure to comply with Article V.


EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: Under date of October 30, 1956, Equipment Maintainer J. Simpson submitted claim for five hours' overtime account of Supervisor H. Eldridge delivering ditching machine No. 1 to Yard Center from Danville, using truck No. H-69.

 Under date of November 5, 1956, Mr. H. Huffman, Engineer Maintenance of Way, denied the claim in a letter reading as follows:


    Mr. J. Simpson

    Oaklawn


    I am returning your service card and form MW 116 report claiming 5 hours at $3.27 on October 30th account Mr. Eldridge


                  [333]

10684-8 340

drive the truck from Danville to Yard Center. The claim is without support under the agreement rules here controlling and must, therefore, be denied.


    (Exhibits not reproduced.)


OPIMON OF BOARD: This is a dispute between the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes and the Chicago and Eastern Illinois Railroad.


The Employes contend a violation of the Scope Rule and that Carrier did not comply with Article V, August 21, 1954 Agreement.


In the handling of the claim it appears the Carrier did not comply with the Rule requiring the Carrier to give the reason for denying the claim.


Article V of the August 21, 1954 National Agreement, the well-known time limit rule, requires that claims be processed in the specified manner on the Carrier's properties and includes a requirement for written disallowance of claims and the reasons therefor.


The Carrier contends that the Petitioner abandoned the claim under Article V and proceeded on the merits.


This claim was presented to Mr. Huffman who denied the claim without giving a reason.


It was then appealed to Mr. Moore on the basis that Article V was violated. Mr. Moore denied the appeal on the merits. Appeal was then made to the highest officer on the property, Petitioner did not state in the appeal that it was solely on Article V and also did not specifically reserve their rights under Article V. Instead requested a conference to discuss the claim. It appears from Exhibit A-5 R. P., 15 that the merits were discussed and still Petitioner does not reserve his rights under Article V. We are of the opinion this constituted a waiver and that the claim could then, only be appealed on its merits. It was not appealed on its merits.


For the foregoing reasons we believe there has been no violation of the Agreement.


FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, after giving the parties to this dispute due notice of hearing hereon, and upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:


That the Carrier and the Employes involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and Employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934;


That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and


    That the Agreement was not violated.


                AWARD


    Claim denied.


              NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD By Order of THIRD DIVISION


              ATTEST: S. H. Schulty

              Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 18th day of July 1962.