(a) The Carrier violated Article V of the August 21, 1954 Agreement when it failed to notify Local Chairman H. L. Morris of its decision within sixty (60) days of his appeal, dated September 12, 1959, of the decision of Mr. L. B. Hale, Supervisor Communications and Signals, who denied the claim on behalf of Signal Maintainer G. G. Long, Jr., for additional compensation for July 2 and 3, 1959.
(b) The Carrier now be required to compensate Signal Maintainer G. G. Long, Jr., for thirteen (13) hours at his overtime rate of pay for July 2, 1959, and three (3) hours at the double-time rate of pay for July 3, 1959, the amount involved in the original claim. (Carrier's File: G-378-14; G-378)
"(a) All claims or grievances must be presented in writing by or on behalf of the employee involved, to the officer of the Carrier authorized to receive same, within 60 days from the date of the occurence on which the claim or grievance is based. 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 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."
The record discloses that a claim in behalf of Claimant was duly filed with Carrier's Supervisor by Employes' Local Chairman. Claim was denied and the Local Chairman filed an appeal in writing with Carrier's Superintendent on September 12, 1959. No response was allegedly received by the Local Chairman within the 60 day time limit and on November 29, 1959, he so informed Carrier's Superintendent in writing. Thereafter, on January 15, 1960, Carrier's Superintendent replied and alleged that the Claim had been denied by letter dated September 18, 1959. Employes' Local Chairman, under oath, denied receipt of the Superintendent's letter dated September 18, 1959 and Employes contend that the Claim should be allowed as presented in accordance with the provisions of Article V, Section 1 (a) of the applicable Agreement. No probate evidence was offered by Carrier in support of its assertion.
As we stated in Award 10173, "Article V, Section 1 places correlative obligations upon the parties with respect to the progression of claims." Just as Employes bear the responsibility of being able to prove that a claim is timely filed with a Carrier, so the burden of proof rests with a Carrier to prove that Employes are duly notified in writing of the reasons for disallowance. Notification connotes communication of knowledge to another of some action or event. The method of communication in the instant case was left to the discretion of the party bearing the responsibility of notification and the Carrier apparently elected to use the regular first class Mail service rendered by the Post Office Department. Had the Carrier elected to us certified or registered mail service offered by the Post Office Department, probative evidence of delivery would be available to support the Carrier's assertion.
Employes cannot be held responsible for the handling of Carrier's mail by the Post Office Department. It was the responsibility of the Carrier to be certain that the letter of disallowance was properly delivered to the Employes' Local Chairman.
Under the controlling language of Article V, Section 1' (a), Carrier is required to allow the claim as presented without consideration of the merits but this shall not constitute a precedent or waiver of the contentions of the Carrier on the merits as to other similar cases or grievances.
FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, 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;