NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION Docket Number SG-19428
Frederick R. Blackwell, Referee
(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(George P, Baker, Richard C, Bond, Jervis Langdon, Jr., and
( Willard Wirtz, Trustees of the Property of
( Penn Central Transportation Company, Debtor
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of Railroad
Signalmen on the former Boston and Albany Railroad, now Penn
Central Transportation Company, involving:
The claim * presented by General Chairman R. J. Torte on
November 5, 1969, to Signal Supervisor D. M, O'Brien, should be allowed, as presented, because said
in accordance with provisions of Article V of the National Agreement dated August
11, 1954.
*The claim, as presented, read:
"Please consider this claim in behalf of Ldr. Signal Mtr.
Torte for all hoots of overtime worked by other employee at
Westboro Yard is connection with the East sad Trk. #1 aw.
These signal employee Lane, Temsaetti, arc. were used or called
to open the above new sw, on evening Sat. 6 Sun, and Mr. Torte
on whose section the Sw. is in was not called.
You stated to me is front of the gang that you could care leas
about the call list and would not honor it. The above and this
claim bears this out, however I ask that you review your position
by paying this claim and agreeing to is the future honor the call
list and so instruct your sides."
(Carrier's File: 11587-NH)
OPINION OF BOARD: Our sole consideration in this dispute concerns procedural
issues, and the merits of the claim are not decided in favor
of or against the Petitioning Organization.
Petitioner contends that the claim moat be paid as presented to Carrier because the Supervisor C
accordance with the provisions of Article V, Sec. 1 (a) of the August 21, 1954
National Agreement. In its submission the Carrier asserts that the claim was
initially invalid because it did not provide the date or dates of the alleged
violation and, therefore, the fact that the Supervisor C&S did not disallow the
claim was of no consequence.
Award Number
197
Page 2
Docket Number SG-19428
The record makes it clear that the claim was not disallowed within
the 60 day period. Thus the question is whether a statement of claim which is
adequate in substantive form, except for the omission of the date of alleged
violation, will cause the running of the 60 day period under the time limits
provisions.
The claim, as presented in a letter dated November 5, 1969, reads
as follows:
"Please consider this claim in behalf of Ldr. Signal Mtr.
Torte for all hours of overtime worked by other employee
at Westboro Yard in connection with the East end Trk,#l sw_
These signal employee Lane, Tamasetti, etc. were used or
called to open the above new sw, on evening Sat. & Sun, and Mr.
Torte on whose section the Sw, is in was not called.
You stated to me in front of the gang that you could care
less about the call list and would not honor it. The above and
this claim bears this out, however I ask that you review your
position by paying this claim and agreeing to in the future honor
the call list and so instruct your aides."
Under date of November 14, 1969, the Supervisor CAS responded to the
above letter as follows:
"In answer to your letter of November 5, 1969, will you give
me something in writing stating more definite times, dates,
places, names and Rules violated, so that I can process this
claim." (Emphasis supplied)
The above letter of Supervisor CAS was answered by the Organization
in a November 15, 1969 letter which did not provide a date or dates of the alleged
violation, but which stated that dates could be provided if the Carrier would
authorize examination of payroll and time reports. The letter also gave
a specific rule as having been violated. There was no further correspondence
between the parties until the Organization wrote the Supervisor C&S on January
19, 1970 demanding payment of claim on grounds of violation of time limits.
The Supervisor did not respond and the Organization renewed its time limits
demand in a February 19, 1970 letter to the next highest officer, Carrier's
Regional Engineer C6S. In an April 16, 1970 letter, the Regional Engineer
C&S, in pertinent part, said:
"Referring to the instant claim, a review of the file indicates
that Mr. O'Brien did write under date of November 14, 1969 indicating that your claim of November 5,
cJ
Award Number
19'/99
Page 3
Docket Number SG-19428
"that letter of November 14th that although it did not
so specifically state, that until ·proper information were
furnished the claim could be entertained and in essence,
was denied.
Since the necessary information to entertain a claim has not
as yet been presented, there can be no violation of Article V
of the August, 1954 Agreement. On this basis, your claim, and/or
request of February 19, 1970 to Mr. R. L. Straw, is hereby further
denied." (Emphasis supplied)
When the claim reached Carrier's highest appeals officer, the Superintendent, Labor Relations &a
letter that:
" ....The original claim submitted did not present the data or dates
involved in the claim and I, therefore, hold the view that the Carrier is not in violation of the ti
...."
In light of the foregoing facts, and the record as a whole, we conclude
that, insofar as the time limit provisions are concerned, the claim was a bona
fide claim and that lack of a date did not render the claim so defective as to
relieve the Carrier of the 60 day time limit provisions. In reaching this conclusion we have conside
and second levels of handling, the claim was procedurally treated as bona fide
by the Carrier. At the first level, the Supervisor CAS asked for more information "so that I can pro
Organization had given notice that the claim had not been disallowed within the
time limits, the Regional Engineer C&S again treated the claim as procedurally
bona fide by asserting that it had been previously denied and by making a further
denial of the claim. These denials came in the Regional Engineer's letter of
April 16, 1970, in which he said; "...I would gather from reading that letter
of November 14 that although it did not so specifically state, that until proper
information were furnished the claim could be entertained and in essence, was
denied _ .Your claim, and/or request... is hereby further denied."
While these admissions of the bona fidenesa of the claim are of sub-
stantial import, as previously indicated, we have also carefully considered
Carrier's ultimate position that the lack of a date made the claim so defective
as to render inconsequential its failure to deny within the time limits. Though
it is better and common practice to include dates in the presentation of claims,
we find no requirement for a date is the applicable provisions on time limits
for presenting and progressing claims or grievances. Article V, Section 1 (a)
of the August 21, 1954 National Agreement. The only reference to a date in
J
these provisions is that the claim moat be presented "within 60 days from the
date of the occurrence on which the claim or grievance is based." This language
I
.. T~ -r,,..
Award Number
19799
Page 4
Docket Number SG-19428
serves as a procedural bar to any claim filed beyond 60 days after such occurrence. The procedur
date is omitted as well as where a date is included in the claim. But we
find nothing in the language providing the procedural bar that expressly or
impliedly requires the date of occurrence to be included in the claim. Thus,
we find no basis for concurring with Carrier's contention that the lack of a
date prevented the running of the 60 day period under the time limit provisions.
The numerous Awards cited by the parties have been helpful in our
study of thin dispute; however, because of their dissimilar facts, discussion
of these Awards is not warranted.
For the foregoing reasons we find that Carrier violated the time limits
provisions and, accordingly, we shall sustain the claim.
FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and
all the evidence, finds and holds:
That the parties waived oral hearing;
That the Carrier and the Employee involved in this dispute are
respectively Carrier and Employee 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 the time limit provisions were violated.
A W A R D
Claim sustained on time limits.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division
ATTEST:
49, ~
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 20th day of Jane
1973.
· -.