11Alu/11 RAAD ALV WL^x··`11 BOX

Award :umber 23125

THIRD DIVISION Docket Number MW-22975

James F. Scearce.. Referee

(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes PARTIES 2n DISPTJTE: (Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad Coqpany

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

(1) The claim as presented by the General Chairman on October 6, 1977 to assistant Division Manager R. P. Peacock shall be allowed as presented because said claim was not disallowed by Assistant Division Manager R. P. Peacock in accordance with Rule k7(a) (System File C#107/D-2077).

*The letter of claim will be reproduced within our initial submission."

OPINION OF BOARD: The issue before this Board is procedural in nature and predicates upon the following circumstances:

1. By date of October 6, 1977, a claim was issued by the Organization protesting work by employes assigned to one seniority district in another district. The claim set forth the purportedly offended employes.. the dates such work was performed and the classifications., numbers and hours purportedly worked by employes of the other se claim did not set out who such employes were or when or what vork was performed, other than to assert such work would have been accomplished by the incumbent employes., had it not been improperly assigned. The letter was addressed to the Assistant Division Manager - Maintenance of the Wisconsin Division (Peacock).

2. By letter dated January 11, 1F$, to the Assistant Vice President of Labor Relations of t e Carrier (Merritt) the organization raised a claim of default based on the nonresponse of Peacock to its October 6, 1977 letter demandinp compensation under the original claim.

3. Via letter of March 13, 1978, to the Organization Merritt indicated that a lack of dMil in the original claim precluded the ability of the Carrier to respond and that it would address this matter once more data was in hand.

Award Number 23125. Page 2

Docket Number biV-22975

4, Subsequent correspondence and meetings resulted in a determination that the disputed work was on the Minnesota-Dakota Division and _not on the Wisconsin Division.

According to the Carrier., the Claim is without substance because it is in error ab initio in keeping with the proper interpretation of Rule 47P Time Limit-Claims or Grievances.. 1(a):

"A11 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 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 carrier shall, within 60 days from the date same is filed, notify whoever filed the claim or grievance (the employee 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 Carrier as to other similar claims or grievances."

The Carrier points specifically to the requirement of the Organization to submit a claim "...to the officer of the Carrier authorized to receive same ..." The Organization raises the same Rule to support the Claim, citing the provision that requires a res 6o days from the date same is filed." Essentially, the Organization asserts here that the Carrier does not escape its response time limits merely because the claim might not have been directed precisely to a particular in any case,, indicating that the claim was not properly addressed - doing so within its 6o day time limit.

We find the record supports the Carrier's position here. While the organization's arguments have a degree of appeal,. they fail on the grounds that the original claim was devoid of even enough detail for the Carrier to determine host to respond to the Organization. An initial obligation issues to the Organization to set forth t lays impotent contentions of failure by the Carrier to follow-up on such flawed claim. The principle of error ab initio is properly cited here; the organization's =plaint of the Carrier's failure to respond timely is without merit since the original basis for the claim is not properly grounded.

Award Number 23125 page 3

Docket Number MW-22975

FMINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the vhole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:

That the parties pawed oral hearing;

That the Carrier and the Employes involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and Employes vithin the meaning of the Railvay Labor Act, as approved dune 21$ 1934;

That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and

That the Agreement vas not violated.

A W A R D

Claim denied.

NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

By Order of Third Division

ATTEST:

Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 15th day of January 1981.