CONCLUSION

It is most obvious that the organization here seeks to corrupt the true facts by seeldng payment of these two claims on the absurd position that the carrier failed to meet its obligations under the agreement. We believe the facts in this case clearly show that it was the organization who failed to meet their obligations when the Local Chairman failed to make other arrangements for conference with the Superintendent after being unable to attend the scheduled October 29, 1959 meeting. The organization then sought to distort this failure by the Local Chairman and twist it into a forfeiture status by the Superintendent. In a further effort to confuse the issue the General Chairman, contrary to the usual procedure, repeatedly sought to perfect the forfeiture appeal without even conferring with the Manager of Personnel.

A denial of these claims is, therefore, respectfully requested.

FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board finds:

That the dispute was certified to the Third Division of the Adjustment Board ex parts by the complainant party and that hearing thereon was waived.

The dispute involved herein was referred to the National Disputes Committee established by Memorandum Agreement dated May 31, 1963, to decide disputes involving interpretation or application of certain stated provisions of specified National Nonoperating Employe Agreements. On March 17, 1965, that Committee rendered the following Findings and Decision (NDC Decision 15):

"FINDINGS: (ART. V) The two claims involved in this docket were individually handled on the property.

"The issue to be resolved is whether the Carrier was in violation of Article V, 1(c) of the August 21, 1954 Agreement in that the Superintendent did not decide the claims involved within 60 days after they had been appealed to him.

"The Local Chairman of Clerks appealed the initial disallowance of such claims to the Superintendent. In keeping with the usual manner of handling, the Superintendent scheduled conference on the claims, which was to be held within 60 days of the appeal. The Local Chairman accepted the proposed conference and conference date, but on such date he was absent because of sickness and he did not show up for the conference. In a letter written after expiration of the 60day period he explained his absence and asserted that Article V had been violated in that the Superintendent had not denied the claims within the time limit. The conference was later held and the claims were formally denied on appeal. The matter of extending the time limit for the Superintendent's decision on appeal was not given any handling.

"The National Disputes Committee rules that there was no extension of the time within which the Superintendent was required to render his decision on appeal, and finds that such decision was not rendered within the applicable time limit.

"In this connection the National Disputes Committee points out that where either party has clearly failed to comply with the requirements of Article V the claim should be disposed of under

Article V at the stage of handling in which such failure becomes apparent. If the carrier has defaulted, the claim should be allowed at that level as presented; and if the employe representatives have defaulted, the claim should be withdrawn.

"DECISION` The claims shall be allowed as presented, on the basis of failure of the Carrier to comply with the requirements of Article V of the Agreement of August 21, 1954.

"This decision disposes of this case. The docket is returned to the Third Division, N.R.A.B., for disposition in accordance with Paragraph 8 of the Memorandum Agreement of May 31, 1963"

AWARD