PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
1UTICMAL RAILRGAD ADJMDM'1' BOARD

 TRW DIVISICt

 William M. Edgett, Referee

 (Brotherhood of Railroad Sigaalmen

 Southern Pacific Transportation CompwW (( (Pacific Lines)

 Award fimber 21179
 Docket Number SG-20967

 STATEMENT CF CLAM: Claims of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of
 Railroad Signalmen on the Southern Pacific Transportation Company (Pacific Lines):

 Claim 1o. 1:

 Lines) violated That Agreement n the tweeAgreement =C~ and the ransportation Company (Pacific

Signal iD 19447((reprinted April 1,eBr1958 Including revisions particularly
 the Scope Rule which resulted in violation of Rule 70.

 (b) That claimants CTC Foreman R. A. Fraga, Lead Signalman W. T. Huehling, Signalman R. 1C. Liggett, Sigoslman C. W. Hampton, Assistant Signs.lman R. Williams Oregon Division be allowed eight hours pa' at their respective straight time rate of pay for each of the following dates and locations:

 August 15, 1973 West End Mt. Shasta
 August 16, 1973 West End Mt. Shasta
 August 17, 1973 West and East End Mt. Shasta
 August 21, 1973 West and East End Mt. Shasta
 August 22, 1973 west and East Bad Mt. Shasta
 August 23, 1973 East End Mt. Shasta
 August 24, 1973 West End Mt. Shasta
 August 27, 1973 East end Azalea
 August 28, 1973 Zest end Azalea
 August 29, 1973 West and Mott

 August 30, 1973 West end Mott 8
 August 31, 1973 East end Mott 8

 A total of 96 bra. each per claimant.

 ffarrier's file: SIG 152-32)

 Claim No. 2:

8 bra. each 8 hrs. each 8 bra. each 8 bra. each 8 bra. each 8 hrs. each 8 bra. each 8 bra. each 8 bra. each 8 bra. each


bra. each bra. each


(s) That the Southern Pacific Transportation Company (Pacific
 Lines) violated the agreement between the Company sad the Employee of the
 Signal Dept, represented by the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen effective


April 1, 1947 (reprinted April 1, 1958 including revisions) and particularly the Scope rule which resulted in violation of Rule 70.

 (b) That claimants CTC Foreman R. A. Fraga, Lead Signalman W. T. Ruehling, Signalman R. b. Liggett, Signalman C. W. Hampton, Assistant Signalman R. Williams, and Sig Oregon Division, be allowed eight hours pay at their respective straight time rates for work performed by employee not covered by the Signalmen's Agreement for each of the following dates and locations:

        Sept. 4, 1973 East and Mott and West end Azalea 8 bra. each

        Sept. 5, 1973 East end Mott and West end Azalea 8 hrs. each

        Sept. 6, 1973 East end Mott and Went end Azalea 8 bra. each

        Sept. 7, 1973 East end Mott and West end Azalea 8 bra. each

        Sept. 10, 1973 East end Mott and West and Azalea 8 bra. each

        Sept. 11, 1973 East end Mbtt and West end Azalea 8 hre. each

        Sept. 12, 1973 East end Mount Shasta 8 hrs. each

        Sept, 13, 1973 East end Mott and West end Azalea 8 hrs. each

        Sept. 14, 1973 Zest end Mott and West end Azalea 8 hra. each

        Sept. 24, 1973 West and East end Mt. Shasta 8 hrs. each

        Sept. 25, 1973 West and East end Mt. Shasta 8 hrs.each

        Sept. 26, 1973 West and East end Mott 8 hrs. each

        Sept. 27, 1973 West end Azalea and East end Mott8 hrs. each


Mr. W. T. Hnehling, R. E. Liggett, C. W. Hampton and R. Williams for the following dates.

        Sept. 17, 1973 West end Mott and West end Azalea 8 bra. each

        Sept. 18, 1973 West end Mott and West end Azalea 8 bra. each

        Sept. 19, 1973 East end Azalea 8 bre. each

        Sept. 20, 1973 West and Azalea and Zest end Mott 8 bra. each


        fUarrier's file: SIG 152-3292)


        Claim No. 3:


(a) That the Southern Pacific Transportation Company (Pacific Lines) violated the Agreement between the Compaq and the

Employee of the Signal Department, represented by the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen,

effective April 1, 1947 (repainted April 1, 1958 including revisions) and particularly Rule 16 which resulted in violation of rule 70.


(b) That Mr. Poulson be allowed seven (7) hours at his overtime rate for July 22, 1973 account not called for signal trouble on his assigned district.

        fc-arrier'a file: SDG 148-2227

                    Award Number 21179 page 3

                    Docket Number 8a-2o967


OpafI0n OF DOM: The employes have progressed this claim entirely on a
 procedural issue, rather than on the merits. It is
 their contention that carrier did not give the General Chairman timely
 notice of the decision of Carrier's highest officer. The General Chairman
 advised Carrier by telephone on February 7, 1974 that he had not received
 a denial of the claim. Carrier advised him that a letter, dated January 24,
 1974, denying the claim had been mailed on that date. Carrier furnished a
 copy of the letter, which included the stamped notation "copies mailed
 January 24, 1974".

 The cases dealing with this issue have not been uniform in their holdings. The employes took the position on the property that Carrier was obliged to insure receipt of the notice of denial within the 60-day period. Carrier has relied upon a line of cases which holds that placing notice in the mail within the 60-day period so that it should be received before the time limits had ran, satisfied the obligation under the Rule.

 Carrier recognizes that it must prove that it fulfilled that obligation and takes the position that it did so when it furnished the General Chairman a copy of its denial notice which indicated that it had been mailed on January 24, 1974. On the property the employes never took issue with Carrier's asserted mailing. Although Carrier had the burden of proving its mailing, once it presented its affirmative defense it was up to the organization to take issue with the record atanda, Carrier has carried its burden of proving that it mailed notice of denial on January 24, 1974.

 The failure to deliver lay, not with Carrier, but with the postal Service. Such a failure is not chargeable to a party where the practice has bean to use the mails for giving notice and the notice was mailed in time to reach the other party within the time limits.

        FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Hoard, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:


        That the parties waived oral hearing;


That the Carrier and the Employes involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and Employer 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

        That the Agreement was not violated.

                    Award Number 21179 Page 4

                    Docket Number 80-20967

                    A W A R D


        Claim denied.


                          HATIOMAL RAILROAD ADJDBTIEIT BOARD

                          By Order of Third Division


ATTEST:

        Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinoiss this 13th day of August 1976.