( Express and Station Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE:


STATEMBNT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood (GIr8734)

(1) Carrier violated the current Agreement between the parties including but not limited to Article VI, Section 2(b) of the TOPS Agreement (Addendum No. 1.) and Rule 1, Scope, when on February 13, March 5 and 28, April 2, 3, 4, and 9, 1977, when it allowed, permitted and/or required I.M.S. Manager, Paul Hebert and Assistant I.M.S. Manger, C. M. Dalton, who are excepted from all of the Rules of the Clerks' Agreement, to perform clerical and messenger duties reserved for Employes covered by the Clerks' Agreement.

 (2) Carrier continues to violate these same rules by allowing, permitting and/or requiring Mr. Hebert and Mr. Dalton to continue performing those clerical duties on various subsequent dates.

 (3) Carrier shall allow the first out extra board employe and/or the senior qualified regular employe with application on file to work positions in the I.M.S. Department at Avondale, Louisiana on overtime basis, eight (8) hours' pay at the time and one-half rate of $53.0532 for each date February 13, March 5 and 28, April 2, 3, 4 and 9, 1977, and continuing on that same basis for each date thereafter that Carrier allows, requires and/or permits I.M.S. Manager Paul Hebert and Assistant I.M.S. Manager C. M. Dalton to perform clerical and messenger duties reserved for the Employes covered by the BRAC Agreement.

 OPINION OF BOARD: The Organization claims that Carrier violated the
 Agreement between the parties when it allowed, permitted and/or required I.M.S. Manager Paul Hebert and Assistant I.M.S. Manager C. M. Dalton to perform clerical and messenger duties. The Organization contends that such duties are reserved to employes covered by the Agreement and that Hebert and Dalton are not covered therein. The Organization filed an initial claim on behalf of certain clerk positions on April 11, 1977. Terminal Superintendent Conner denied the claim by letter, dated May 17, 1977. Appeal was made to Superintendent Winterrowd on June 20, 1977.


Winterrowd did not deny the claim until November 14, 1977. This was 147 days after the appeal was forwarded to him. Carrier argues that it had no obligation to respond to the June 20, 1977 appeal because the claim was deficient, e.g., no employe initiated the claim, no names were provided to correspond to the dates of the alleged violation, and there was a general lack of specificity.

 Rule 26 - Time Limits - requires the denial of a claim be in writing within sixty (60) days from the date the claim was filed. This language is clear and unambiguous. Nothing presented to this Board excused Carrier from its obligation to disallow the claim within sixty days. By failing to do so, any arguments Carrier wished to present to defeat the claim are untimely.

 This Board has held many times that time requirements are mandatory and that failure to timely disallow a claim requires that "it be allowed as presented." See for example, Third Division Award No. 20520. As such, pursuant to Rule 26, we will pay the claim as presented up to November 14, 1977 - the date of the late denial.

 In light of the foregoing, we are not reaching the merits of the " case.

        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 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 involved herein; and

        That the Agreement was violated.


                      A W A R D ( ^,,~ ^ ·r^~

        y

        Claim sustained up to November 14, 1977.


                            NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                            By Order of Third Division

ArTESTp a&* i

        Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 18th day of April 1980.