Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employee PARTI t~'_^, PARTIES TO DISPUTE.

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

 (1) The claim* as presented by Paul D..Faubion on January 16, 1979 to Assistant Division Manager V. 1.. Stoner shall be alloyed as presented because said claim was not disallowed by Assistant Division Manager V. L. Stoner in accordance with rule 47(a) (system File 47o/B-2x26$).

OPINION OF BOARD: The pivotal question in this dispute is whether Claimant's
 letter of January 16, 1979 constituted a claim under Rule 47 (a)
 of the controlling agreement. Claimant contends that it wen a claim, since he was
 required to assume travel, lodging axut extra expenses because of (terrier's failure
 to honor the April 4, 1977 protective agreement, while Carrier contends that it was
 not a claim since it was untimely filed, vague and unspecific and the extension of
 a grievance that had been resolved.









                  Docket Number MW-2;',400


    "I hope you will agree that this situation is unreasonable, and, I ask new to be reimbursed !~or these 7 months away from home expenses, in the amount of $21616.50- An itemized statement of these expenses is enclosed, :Airther, T ask that a definite arrangement regarding my future status be made immediately. I ask that either, (1) Arrangements be made for moving my residence to Excelsier Springs, or (2) That monthly reimbursement be made for these away from-home expenses.


    Respectfully Yours,


    /a/ Paul D. Faubion


    Copy to: R. W. Mobry, C.M.ST. F.P.

    System Fed.

    925 Upper Midwest Bldg.

    Minneapolis, MN. 55401"


In our review of this case, we concur with Claimant's position. We have carefully considered Carrier's avermente that the January 16, 1979 letter was not perceived as a claim since it was vague and imprecise, but we find that the letter contained sufficient specificity to constitute a claim, particularly, the first sentence of paragraph two, which requested an aggregate dollar amount of rel to comply with the 1977 Polo-Culver Protective Agreement sad reflected a distinct cause-effect relationship. Whether it was claim is not at issue here. Rule 47(a) which is applicable to this dispute permits an employs to file a claim with the Ccirx·ier officer, authorized to receive name, within 60 days of the occurrence on which the claim or grievance is based. It does not prescribe s claim format or require that certain information be provided as a was not written in a generalized or conditioned language, but written in straightforward language wh 4, 1977 PrOteqtive Agreement to Claimant's out of pocket expenses* Moreover, when the history of his request for protective status is studiously assessed, his letter of January 160, 1979 marks s distinguishable break from his traditional mode of inquiry. He is now asking for a specific dollar amount of incurred expense reimbursement for (sccler'a presumptive failure to apply the April 4, 1977 Protective Agre1· meat. He was entitled to a response, pursuant to the clcar language of Rule 47(a) within the specified 60 day period. If the claim were frivolous or indefensible, Carrier could. deny it on procedural or substantive grounds, but ~.t wau obligated to answer claimant's letter. Admittedly, V. L. Stoner's January 8, 1079 letter to General Chairman Mobry indicates that he was granted protective statue, but this does not moot the claim or preclude Claimant from filing a petition. As an employs, who submitted a claim on his behalf, he provided sufficient information in his January 16, 1979 letter to permit Carrier the opportunity to act upon it.
                  Award Number 23511 Page 3

                  Docket Number MW-2340()


In Third Division Award 10500, which conceptually supports this case, we stated in pertinent part that:

    "(terrier failed to give written notice, within sixty days, of the reasons for disallowance of claims filed December 5, 1955. It would appear from the reading of the claims, on their face, they nre valid ones. Had the Carrier desired to controvert the facts involved in the dispute or attacked the validity of the claims it would have been a simple matter for it to have done so by denying or disallowing the claims in writing within a period This procedural section is mandatory rather than directive in that a definite penalty is provided therein for failure to write disallowance of claim within sixty days - the claim to be allowed as presented."


In the instant case, we find that Claimant's January 16, 1979 letter constituted a claim under Rule 47(a) and Carrier was obligated to disallow it within the required time period.

        FINDINGS: The Th:.rd Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and a17. the evidence, finds and holds:


        That the parties waived oral hearing;


That the Carrier and the Onployea involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and Employee within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934;

 That this Division o.° the Adjustment Board has ,jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; sad

        That the Agreement was violated.


                        A W p R D


        Claim sustained.


                              NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                              By Order of Third Division


ATTEST:
        Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 29th day of January 1982.