THIRD DIVISION
(Supplemental)
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen on the Kansas City Southern Railway Company:
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: This claim arose because Carrier arranged for a contractor to dig trenches for the installation of conduit, wires and junction boxes for use in connection with highway crossing protection devices in Beaumont, Texas.
The disputed work was performed in February 1966. Claim was initiated March 7, 1966 on the basis Carrier's action constituted a violation of the Classification Rules, the Scope, and a Memorandum dated May 10, 1944. It was subsequently handled to a conclusion on the property, up to and including the highest officer of the Carrier designated to handle such disputes, without receiving satisfactory settlement. Pertinent exchange of correspondence on the property is attached hereto as Brotherhood's Exhibits Nos. 1 through 9. Not shown are brief letters involving time limits and/or the General Chairman's requests for conference.
OPINION OF BOARD: This Claim was declined by Carrier's highest designated officer on July 25, 1966. Under the provisions of Article V, Paragraph (c) of the National Agreement dated August 21, 1954, the claim became barred unless proceedings were instituted before this Division of the NRAB by April 25, 1967. Those proceedings were not instituted until June 21, 1967.
In a letter dated April 10, 1967, Carrier's highest designated officer referred to a conference held on March 29, 1967, at which the Claim was discussed, and reaffirmed his declination of July 25, 1966; no mention was made in this letter that any extension of the time limits had been granted the Organization.
In a letter dated April 30, 1967, Organization's General Chairman claimed that during the conference on March 29th Carrier officials Hanson and Schell
had promised to give the Organization a letter extending the time limits by ninety days. On May 2, 1967, Carrier replied:
. Our records show that claim was declined by the undersigned in a letter dated July 25, 1966, declined in conference March 29, 1967, and that on April 10, 1967, 1 confirmed conference advising that my declination of July 25, 1966, was reaffirmed. Neither Messrs. Hanson nor Schell have any recollection or knowledge of any discussion concerning extending the time limit of this claim.
If my letter did not properly reflect your understanding with respect to extending the time limit, you should have written me promptly so that the matter could have been handled before April 25, 1967, on which date the time limit expired. As you know, I am not adverse to giving extensions provided request is made prior to date claims are barred under the governing rule." (Emphasis ours.)
The soundness of the emphasized statement is proved by the state of the record here resulting from Organization's failure to act according to it. We have an affirmation by Organization representatives that the extension was promised and granted at the March conference, and we have a denial by Carrier representatives that any extension was promised or granted. We are in no position to resolve this conflict as to fact. Since the alleged fact is essential to the viability of Organization's case, it was incumbent on the Organization to establish it firmly while the case was still clearly on the property. In this case we cannot find from the record that any extension of time was granted.
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;
That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and
That Organization failed to institute proceedings before this Board timely under Article V, Paragraph (c) of the National Agreement dated August 21, 1954.