(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (National Railroad Passenger Corporation

 STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood
 of Railroad Signalmen on the National Railroad
 Passenger Corporation (former New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad
 Company):

 On behalf of Mr. Daniel Tarasevich, whose position of Leading Signal Maintainer at Old Saybrook was abolished on February 2, 1977, for travel time, mileage and the difference in pay of what he now makes and what he made as Leading Signal Maintainer, plus all overtime made by the Maintainer."

 (The foregoing claim should be allowed as presented because Carrier did not render a decision on the June 11, 1977 appeal until January 18, 1978)

 OPINION OF BOARD: This claim is before the Board on a claim of
 procedural irregularity., Specifically, the
 Organization claims that Carrier's highest designated officer did not
 respond to an appeal within the time limits.

 Claimant, handling his own claim, submitted it to the supervisor C & S. It was timely denied the denial, but sent copies of the original claim to the next higher officer and to the highest designated officer. The contention here is that the claim was not answered as required by the Rules. However, the Board finds that there was no appeal in the accepted sense, and that the highest designated officer was not on notice that an appeal had been made. Carrier's highest designated officer received what looked like an information copy of a claim, carrying the original claim date and was not put on notice by it that he had received an appeal which required an answer. Under the circumstances, the Board will dismiss the claim, since Carrier did not commit any procedural irregularity as the claim was not appealed by the sending of a copy of the original claim. Carrier cannot be found to have failed to answer an appeal on time when the fact is that no appeal was made.
 Award Number 22776
 Docket Number SG-22650

 Page 2

That the parties waived oral hearing;

 That the Carrier and the Employes involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and Employes 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 irrvolved herein; and

 That the Agreement was not violated.

 A W A R D
Clain dismissed.

ATTEST: &4~

Executive Secretary

NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

By Order of Third Division


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 14th day of March 1980.