Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks, ( Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (Houston Belt & Terminal Railway Company



1. Carrier violated the Clerks' Agreement when Carrier officers failed to render decision within the sixty (60) day time limit prescribed by Rule 28.

2. The Carrier shall be required to compensate claimants as fol
lows: (a) F.D. Rivers for eight (8) hours at the punitive rate of Chief
Yard Clerk 559, or $66.57 per day, each day July 14, 16, 17, 18, 21, 22, 23,
24, 25, 28, 31; August 1 and 2, 1974.

(b) C. J. Butaud, eight (8) hours at the pro rata rate of Route Clerk, or $42.60 per day, each day July 12 and 14, 1974.

(c) E. P. Teague, eight (8) hours at the punitive rate of Counterman, or $56.72 per day, July 4,
(d) Judy A. Hodges, eight (8) hours at the pro rata rate of Keypunch Operator, or $41.9.7 per da
(e) John G. Lusk, eight (8) hours at the pro rata rate of PICL Clerk, or $43.51 per day, July 10, 1974.

OPINION OF BOARD: This issue in this dispute is whether or not the time
limit provisions of the Agreement were complied with.
Rule 28 provides in pertinent part:





With respect to Claimants Rivers, Butaud, Teague and Lusk there is no evidence of delivery or receipt of denials of the claims. No letters or copies of letters of denial were furnished to Petitioner during the handling on the property and no was furnished during the handling on the property. All Claimants deny ever having received declinations of their claims. Carrier maintains that denials were timely sent through its internal mail system, as was customary.

With respect to Judy Hodges' claim, Carrier has taken the consistent position that no claim was ever statement, Petitioner has furnished no evidence that this claim was indeed filed. A copy of the alleged claim was appended to correspondence by Petitioner (letter dated Octobe
In a closely related dispute, Award 15517, involving the same parties, we held that it was Carrier's
Based on the circumstances herein, and the language of Rule 28, Carrier is required to allow the claims of Rivers, Teague, Butaud and Lusk as presented, without consideration of the merits. The claim of Hodges will be denied for lack of proof of its filing.





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








                            By Order of Third Division


        ATTEST: Executive Sec etary


        Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 28th day of May 1976.