THE DENVER AND RIO GRANDE WESTERN RAILROAD
COMPANY
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen on the Denver and Rio Grande Western Railroad Company:
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: During May 1967, a heavy Maintenance of Way machine known as a ballast tamper was operated on the assigned territory of signal maintainer H. H. Swartz, with headquarters at Rifle, Colorado.
It was decided by the Carrier that Automatic Block Signal protection would be provided for the machine during the operation and the signal maintainer from the adjoining territory was assigned to provide this protection while the machine was operated on the territory of signal maintainer Swartz on the dates involved in the instant claim.
Rule 20 of the Signalmen's Agreement (effective March 15, 1953) reads as follows:
OPINION OF BOARD: During the month of May, 1967, Carrier caused a heavy Maintenance of Way machine known as a "ballast tamper" to be operated on Claimant's assigned territory. Carrier decided to provide Automatic Block Signal protection during this operation and, while Claimant was working his regular assignment, Carrier called in a Signal Maintainer from an adjoining territory to handle the automatic block signal protection. The Organization relies on Rule 20 of the Agreement to uphold this Claim, which is:
Cannier contends that this claim should be dismis>~ed because it was improperly fried in that Claimant entered on time-rolls that he had actually performed flagging work involved herein, including overtime; that this action constituted a false representation and did not constitute a "claim" as contemplated by Article V, 1(a) of the Angust 21, 1954_ National Agreement.
It is the opinion of this Board that Carrier's contention is well taken; this misrepresentation does not constitute a "claim" as contemplated by Article V, 1(a) of the August 21, 1954 Natiorml Agreemont. If he (Claimant) had performed the work, as indicated on the timerolls, an entirely different question would have been presenter) to this Board for consideration. It, therefore, follows that this is a defect of both substance and form. Timerolls should reflect the highest degree of integrity and should reflect unquestioned accuracy. The timeroll does not constitute a claim as contemplated by Article V of the August 21, 1954 National Agreement.
Not having considered the inaccurate time roll as constituting a claim, it follows that no claim was filed for overtime flagging within the 60 days allowed under the Time Limit Rule, and, therefore, this claim is barred.
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
In the second laa paragraph of the Opinion of Board the Referee saw fit to sermonize on the high degree of integrity and accuracy that should be reflected in timerolls thus imnly;ng that the method used by Claimant in filing his claim was designed to defraud the Company. The record disclosed, for ail .vho could read, that from the very beginning Carrier understood Claimant was endeavoring to ale a claim for overt'me lost . As a matter of fact, his Supervisor suggested that: "* * * You could have claimed time under item P$N W (Paid 8: not worked) 3c explained reason when making explanation. * * *", indicating that the claim would have been acceptable if made at the right place on the time report.
The bald a,se:tion that: "" * * The timeroll does not constitute a claim as contemplated by Article V of the August 21, 1954, National Agreement." does not reflect either the attitude of the industry as a whole or the Third Division. Awards 10648 and 12391. Furthermore, the bald assertion has no place where, ns here, tha matter was referred to by Carrier representatives at every stage of handling on the property as a "claim".