(Brotherhood of Failroad Signalmen
 PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
 (Consolidated Rail Corporation
 ((Former Penn Central Transportation Company)

 STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood
 of Fail.road Signalmen on the former Pennsylvania
 Failroad Company:
                  Central Region - Valley Division Case 4-75


        Claim that the carrier violated the current Signalmen's Agree-

        ment and particularly article.4 section 22- (a),-Article 2 -

        Section 8 (b) and article 2 section 14 (b) when on or about

        February 24, 1975 all employees on seniority district 17, 17A

        and 17B were ordered by the carrier Officials to report for

        work at 8:00 am (DST) instead of their regularly advertised

        starting time of 7:00 am (DST) without their positions being

        abolished and readvertised as called for in the above stated

        rules.


        Claim that this action was taken in an arbitrary manner without cause or reason and without consent of this organization and by doing so the end of the tour of duty was extended from 3:30 pmm (DST) to 4:30 (DST) and the lunch period from 11:00 am (DST) to 12:00 pmm (DST) thereby placing these employees on as overtime status under the provisions of article 2 section 8(b) and article 2 section 14 (b).


        Claim that each and every employee affected be paid one and one half (1 1/2) hours at the overtime rate of one and one half (1 1/2) for each assigned working day beginning with February 24, 1975 and continuing until such time that this illegal practice is discontinued.

                        Award Number 22036 Page 2

                        Docket Number SG-21856


              (Claim should be allowed as presented because the Superintendent-Labor Relations did not render a timely decision on the Local Chairman's appeal dated May 12, 1975, as required by Article V of the August 21, 1954 National Agreement).


OPINION OF BOARD: This claim arose as a consequence of the decision
 of the Federal Government to extend Daylight Savings
 Time so as to commence on February 23, 1975, rather than the end of
 April, as part of the response to the continuing nation-wide acute fuel
 shortage. Prior to February 28, 1975, Claimants had been assigned re
 gularly scheduled hours of 7:00 A.M. to 3.30 P.M. Eastern Standard Time.
 With the imposition of winter Daylight Savings Time in 1975, the Carrier
 placed Claimants on a schedule of 8:00 A.M. to 4:30 P.M. Daylight Savings
 Time. The effect of this was to keep the Claimants on the same "sun-time"
 schedule as was the case prior to the imposition .of winter Daylight ._._..
 Savings Time. The Organization's claim and the- Carrier's _defAnse_ bnth_._ _..
 rest on Article 4, Section 22, of the applicable Agreement which--reads zn-- -
 part:

      "(a) When any of the following changes occur in a regular position the position shall be re-advertised:


                  (1) A change in assigned working days.

                  (2) A change in assigned starting time.

                  (3) A material change in location of headquarters.

                  (4) A material extension of territory.

                            (5) A material change in the character of a plant or section.

                    (6) A change in rate of pay except a change resulting from the application of a general wage increase or decrease.


      (b) Changes in starting time caused by the adoption of Daylight or War Saving Time shall not be considered cause for advertisement of the position."

                      Award Number 22036 Page 3

                      Docket Number SG-21856


Even if merit were found in the claim that the new schedule was "a change in assigned starting time", the Carrier's right to make such change without re-advertisement of the positions is covered in Section 22(b). No suggestion is made that the change resulted from other than the consequences of Daylight Savings Time.

 The Board finds no violation of the rules because of the adaption of hours to Daylight Savings Time. It follows, therefore, the claims are without foundation as to overtime pay for the-final hour of the eight-hour schedule (Article 2, Section 8(b)), and as to arrangements for meal period (Article 2, Section 14 (b)).

 Award No. 21752 (Eischen) concerns the same Organization
 and Carrier, and deals with an identical claim, although from cir
 cumstances arising one year earlier. Award No. 21476 (ES.schen) also
 rules on a similar circumstance, although a different -Rile violation
 was alleged. In denying the merits of the instant Claim, the Board
 endorses fully the findings in Award Nos. 21752 and 21476. -

 In this case, however, the Organization raises a separate procedural matter which requires resolution. After the initial denial of the claim by the Carrier, the Organization appealed the denial by letter of May 12, 1975. In a later letter of July 22, 1975, the Organization stated that it had received no denial of the appeal from the Carrier and, since the specified 60-day limitation had passed, the Organization argued that the Claim "is now payable."

 Carrier advised the Organization by letter of July 25, 1975, that it had replied to the appeal on May 22, 1975, transmitting a copy of such answer to the Organization. The July 25 letter and enclosure were sent by mail, according to the Carrier, by the identical means and method of address
The Board finds that the Organization has made no substantive case as to the Carrier's failure to co of the appeal procedure. While it may well be that the Organization failed to receive the original copy of the May 22 letter, no convincing evidence was presented to sh the letter. No attempted evasion of the procedure was shown, and all correspondence from the Carrier in the matter was particularly prompt.
 Award. Number 22036
 Docket Number SG-21856

 Page 4

          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 Employes involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and Employes whithin 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 Agreement was not violated.

 A W A R D
Claim denied.

 ATTEST:
          Executive Secretary


NATIONAL H%IL1%lAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

By Order of Third Division


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 28th day of April 1978.