NATIONAL RAILROAD
Anniustrr1ENT
BQM
THIRD DIVISION Docket Number MW-22620
(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
PARTIES TO DISM:
(Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific
( Railroad Company
S
TATEMEM OF C?AIM: "Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood
that:
The clains* as presented by the General Chairman
in
four
(4) letters dated March 3I., 1977 to Mr. R. T. Pearson, Assistant
Division Manager, Maintenance of Way, shall be allowed as presented
because said claims were not disallowed by said
Assistant Division
Manager in'accordance with Agreement Rale 47 1(a). (Carrier's Files
D-2013; D-·207.4; D-2015; D-2026 -» General. Chairman°s Files 'C-28; C-27;
C-30; C-29)
*The letters of claim presentation will be reproduced within
our initial submission."
OPINION OF BOARD: This claim involves the alleged violation of
Rule 47·1 (a) which reads:
"l, All claims or grievances arising on or after January 1,
1955 shall be handled as follows;
(a) All claims or grievances must be presented in writing
by or on, behalf of the employee involved, to the
officer of the Carrier authorized to receive same,
within. 601 days
from the date of the occurrence on
which the claim or grievance is based. Should any
such claim or grievance be disallowed, the carrier
shall, within 60 days from the date same is filed,
notify whoever filed the claim or grievance (the
employee or hats representative) in writing of the
reasems for such disallowance. If not so notified,
the claim or grievance shall be allowed as presented,
Award Number
Docket Number LET-22620
"but this shall not be considered as a precedent or
waiver o£ the contentions of the Carrier as to other
similar claims or grievances."
Page 2
The Carrier, puxsesant
to Rule 47-1 {a}, informed the
Organization by latter, dated September 24., 1976, that claims should
be filed with the Assistant Division Manager.
The four claims in this
matter were filed with Assistant
Manager, R. T. Pearson, by
letter, dated March 31, 1977.
Mr. F. A. Barton, the Division Manager, responded to the
claims instead a£ Mr. Pearson, the Assistant Division Manager,
The Organization asserts that the authored
officer failed to
respond to the claims
as
required by Rule
47-1 {a}, therefore, the
claims should be allowed
as presented.
In its submission to this Board, the Carrier does
not deny
that
the Assistant Division Manager did not respond to the claims
submitted, but contends that the response of the Division
Manager
is sufficient far
compliance trith Rule 47-1 {a} .
The Carrier
argues further that
these claims were initially
invalid because they were
not submitted timely.
The Organization asserts that the claims were timely filed
and the sole question involved
in these cases is strictly a pro
cedural one area the merits of the
claims should
not be considered.
A dispute similar to this
one was
adjudicated by this
Division same fifteen years-ago. In that Award #1x374,
the
authorized
officer was a chief carpenter -the
response to
the claim was made
by Carrier's Division Engineer and
the Division then held;
"Petitioner has the right to rely upon Carrier's
freely made designations a£ Carrier's representatives authorized to
process
claims from inception
through appeals an the property.
Consequently,
any decision, relative to
the claim, communicated
to Petitioner by the Division Engineer, is not
material. `*
Award Number 22710
Docket
Number MW-22620
Other Awards that have followed the same principle are
Nos. 4529, 163088$ 176961 18002, 21297$ 19946, 21889 and 9760.
Page 3
We have reviewed
the authority submitted by the parties.
great weight of authority supports the position of the Organiza-
tion that the Carrier committed a procedural error when an official
other than the one designated to receive and process the claims
responded to the claims.
We-agree with the Organization that the Carrier violated
Rule 47-1 (a) when it permitted Division Manager F. A. Barton to
decline the claims rather than the Assistant Division Manager
R. T. Pearson to whom the claims were presented. Therefore, we
will sustain the claims. Nor do the provisions of the rule con
template, when it is applicable, that the merits of the claims
shall be considered, consequently, we shall not do so.
FTND1MS
; The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole
record and all the evidence, finds sad holds;
That the parties waived oral hearing;
That the Carrier and the Employee involved in this dispute
axe respectively Carries and Employee within. the meaning of the
Railway Labor Act, as approved Jane 21, 1934;
That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction
over the dispute involved herein; and
The Carrier violated
the
Agreement
A W A R D
The claims are sustained.
,
&.9we4s..
time Secretary
NATIONAL
RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
Bp Order of Third Division
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 11th dap of January 1980.