PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (Brotherhood of Railroad signalmen
 Chicago and North Western Transportation Company

 STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claims of the System Committee of the Brotherhood of
 Railroad Signalmen on the Chicago and North Western
 Transportation Company:

 Claim No. 1
(a) On or about November 15, 1972 the Carrier violated the current Signalmen's Agreement, Particularly Rule 24 thereof as pertains to the Mmorandnm of Understanding on Loft', denied leaders rate of pay to Signal Mtnr. L. E. Koppeahaver, as specifically provided in the Memorandum.

 (b) Carrier now be required to compensate L. E, Koppenhaver the difference in the rate of pay between the leaders rate and maintainers rate for 6 hours and 15 minutes, the amount of time shown on payroll form 1171 on November 8, 1972, which was denied on November 15, 1972.

 Claim No. 2
(a) On November 24, 1972 the Carrier violated the current Signalmen's Agreement, particularly rule 2
fUnd compensation on the Mason City territory, when Sig. Supr., R. C. Loft',fmpensation of leaders r haver on the auto flags at Des Moines Street, Webster City, Iowa on Novem
 ber 20, 1972.

 (b) Carrier now be required to compensate him the difference between the rate allowed and leaders rate for 2 hours and 40 minutes, the amount of time claimed on Form 1171. ZC-arrier's File: 79-24-2)

 OPINION OF HOARD: The claims herein are all related to the overtime prob
 lems triggered by the consolidation of certain Signal
 Maintenance territories by Carrier in January 1972. Parallel issues have
 been considered by this Board in a series of cases, the leading case being
 Award 20801.

 Petitioner first raises, in this dispute, the adequacy of Carrier's denial of the initial Claim on the property. It is urged that Carrier's response that: "There is no basis for claim as I can find no rule to support it ...." is insufficient under the Time Limit on Claims Rule of the 1954 National Agreement. We have dealt with this issue in numerous prior disputes.


Under very similar circumstances (Award 11208) we held that a valid reason for denying any claim is that the agreement was not violated because tm plicit in the statement is the opinion that the claim lacks support under the rules of the agreement. Among the many other awards dealing with this problem we have recently, in Awards 20801 and 20802 involving the same parties and the identical allegation, denied Petitioners' contention. Although more detailed reasons might be desirable, the language used by Carrier's officer must be deemed acceptable under the 1954 National Agreement.

 With respect to the merits, Carrier has agreed that this dispute, though slightly different, deals with the same problem which the Hoard has considered as indicated above: namely, whether or not the Carrier is required to use the leading sig perform all overtime work on the entire Central Division. The only dffference is that the instant Cl in the earlier cases.

Memorandum of Understanding dated January 16, 1941, in view of the consolidation and enlarging of the Mason City combined territory, We have affirmed the validity and continuing applicability of that Understanding in Award 20801 and following Awards, and must do so for the reasons stated in Award 20801 in the instant dispute. For that reason, these Claims must be sustained,



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 Hoard has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and









ATTEST:
        Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 27th day of February 1976.