THIRD DIVISION
(Supplemental)
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen on the Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railroad Company that:
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: Originally, this dispute involved Carrier's violation of the current Schedule Agreement, particularly Rules 5, 14 15 59, 60 and the seniority rules, which it required Signal Maintainer R. M. Rizzuto, headquartered at Blue Island, Illinois, to work off his assigned territory on that of a maintainer who was on vacation. The violation occurred, first, on May 10, 1963, and was repeated on May 13, 14, 15 and 20. As a result, claim was filed on behalf of Mr. Rizzuto for varying numbers of hours on each of the above days; the total amount claimed for the 5 days was 24 hours at the punitive rate.
The claim (Brotherhood's Exhibit No. 1) was initiated with Signal Superintendent R. S. Carle, who denied it (Brotherhood's Exhibit No. 2); it was
5. On July 8, 1963, the Employes filed claim in behalf of Signal Maintainer R. M. Babb, Relief Signal Maintainer, 61st Street, Chicago, for straight time rate on May 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 20, 21, 22 and 23, 1963, account "he was not put on his own assignment which he received by bulletin as the relief signal maintainer under Memorandum of Agreement which is to provide for vacation relief and other relief on the Chicago Terminal." (See Carrier's Exhibit C-1J.
Further handling of the Employes' claim is shown by Carrier's Exhibits C-2 through C-7.
6. On July 8, 1963, the Employes also filed claim in behalf of Assistant Signalman J. L. Tarrant on May 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10, 1963, and E. Haberman on
May 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 20, 21, 22, and 23, 1963, for difference between their respective rates and rate of signalman based on contention that:
Further handling of this claim is shown by Carrier's Exhibits D-2 through D-7.
7. On June 29, 1963, the Employes filed a claim in behalf of Signal Maintainer R. M. Rizzuto, Blue Island, Illinois for
all at punitive rate of pay in addition to what he had already been paid on the above dates account alleged violation of Rules 5, 14, 15, 59, 60, and seniority rules. (See Carrier's Exhibit E-1)
Further handling of this claim is shown in Carrier's Exhibits E-2 through E-6.
OPINION OF BOARD: The above claim progressed to the Superintendent of the Carrier who responded to it in his letter to the Local Chairman dated September 10, 1963, by stating: "Claims are respectfully declined:'
The question before us is whether the quoted language fulfills the requirement of Article V, Section 1(a) of the Agreement dated August 21, 1954 that the Carrier notify whoever files the claim in writing of the reasons for its disallowance.
We are of the opinion that the quoted language does not fulfill the requirement that Carrier, in denying a claim, must apprise the Organization of the reasons for denial. Award No. 15856 (John J. McGovern).