Joseph A, Sickles, Referee


    (Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes PARTS TO DISPUTE: (Burlington Northern Inc.


                  STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:


    (1) The Carrier violated the Agreement when it deducted one day's pay from the first half of November 1974 pay of Welder A. T. Budzeak (System File T-D-105C/bW-40 (b) 2/14/75).


    (2) The claim- presented by Vice General Chairman S. R. Walster on December 16, 1974 to Superintendent P. B. Rasmussen shall be allowed as presented because said claim was not disallowed by Superintendent P. B. Rasmussen in accordance with Rule 42.


            () The claim as presented reads:


            'This claim is for eight (8) hours' pay at straight time rate of five dollars and fifty-four cents ($5.54) for a total claimed of forty-four dollars and thirty-two cents ($44.32).1"


    OPINION OF BOARD: On December 16, 1974, the Vice General Chairman

    submitted a claim to Superintendent Rasmussen

    concerning holiday pay allegedly due Claimant.


    Assistant Superintendent Jacobson, declined the claim on December 30, 1974.


    When the :natter was appealed to the Labor Relations Vice President on February 14, 1975, in addition to the merits of the claim, the General Chairman contended that the claim was payable by aefault because the Superintendent "...failed to decline the claim.''


      The Vice President's April 1, 1975 declination made no mention of the "default" argument, nor did his August 8, 1975 letter regarding the claim - even though that contention was raised again in July 10, 1975 correspondence.


l
                  Award Number 21899 Page 2

                  Docket Number MW-21641


      -Rule 42 A states:


      "A. All claims or grievances :mist be presented in writing by or on behalf of the employe involved, to the officer of the Company authorized to receive same, within sixty (60) days from the date of the occurrence on which the claim or grievance is based. Should any such claim or grievance be disallowed, the Company shall, within sixty (00' days from the date same is filed, notify whoever filed the claim or grievance (the employe or his _ representative) in writing of the reasons for such_disallowance. If not so notified, the claim or grievance shall be allowed as presented, but this shall not be considered as a precedent or waiver of the contentions of the Company as to other similar claims or grievances."


The Organization asserts (and Carrier does not deny) that under the cited rule, the Carrier can - and does - designate the officer to receive claims, and the order of appeals. Thus, Claimant asserts that because the claim was not disallowed by the official to whom it was presented, it must be "...allowed as presented."

 In its Submission to this Board, Carrier minimizes the "default" argument - asserting that Bale 42 A requires that the "Company" notify of a declination of the claim - which, it contends, was done here.

 We have considered the conflicting authority submitted by the Parties, and we have noted the Carrier's assertions that it is free to assign its employes and run its business in this regard without limitation by the Organization.

 We have noted, among other authority, Second Division Award'6983, concerning this Carrier and the Carmen - adopted in November of 1975 - which supports Carrier's position herein, as well as Third Division Award 20790 (July, 1975) involving a different Carrier. .'bong other of the Organization's citations, we have considered Award No. 14 of Public Law Board 1844 (August 18, 1977) which concluded that:

            "...the great weight of authority on this subject is contra to Award 20790."

                  Award NtLmoer 2189."v

                  Docket Number PY-216441


We are of" the view that if Carrier desired to defend the concept that an original claim nay be denied by someone other than the official towhom it is foroarded p it had a duty to raise the ooncept while the m-atter was under review on the property ohere, as here, the Cxgani^ation put Carrier or> notice of its contezaion it that regard on tvo occasions before the dispute was sub=3.tted to this card,

        it is t'nnecessary to consider the :merits of the dispute.


        FIi?~DZS: Zia Tl°eixd Division of the A6justxent Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:


        That the parties waived ore? hearing,;


Carrier and the W--playes irvolved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and Ea?oyes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as aVorovad j=e 21, lo ?4;

 That this Division of the Adjustment Board has ,jurisdiction over the dispute in,~rolved herein; and

        That the Agreement was violated.


                  A W A R D


        ClaxY (23 s=tained,


                          RATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUMMASIFT BOARD

                          By Order of naird Division


ATMCT
 I'l.ecutivc, Secretary
                        v.


Dated at ahicago* Illinois, this -15th dev of 7mbruanP 1?'?g.