(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks, ( Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE:



1) Carrier violated and continues to violate the Clerks' Rules Agreement at Chicago, Illinois commencing September 25, 1978 when it failed to assign Position No. 26310 or Position No. 26320 both titled Time Revisor to Employe Nancy L. Hopis.

 2) Carrier further violated the Agreement when it refused to grant Employe Hollis an investigation as per her request in line with the provisions of Rule 22(f).

 3) Carrier shall now be required to recognize Employe Ho pis' seniority rights, assign her to Position No. 26310 or 26320, and compensate her for an additional day's pay at the appropriate rote for each workday she is denied her contractual rights to that position.

 4) Carrier shall be required to pay interest in the amount of seven and one-half (A) percent per annum on all wage loss sustained as set forth under item 3 of the claim until the violation has been corrected.

 OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant N. L. Hopis was not assigned to Position No. 26310 or 2 320, the Time Revisor positions she sought. Two employes less senior than Claimant were awarded these positions. Claimant inquired as to why she was not assigned one of the two jobs. She was told that she did not possess the necessary skill and ability to perform the required work.

 She thereupon requested an unjust treatment hearing, as outlined in Rule 22(f). Claimant was informed that she was not authorized such a hearing, because her claim was covered by a specific rule of the agreement.

 On November 10, 1978, the Local Chairman filed the above-cited claims on behalf of the Grievant. The claims were addressed to T. M. Hansen. On January 29, 1979, the Local Chairmen again wrote T. M. Hansen, pointing out that he had not responded to the November 10, 1978, claim and that the 60 days allowed by Rule 36(a) to deny a claim had expired. Therefore, the claim must be allowed as presented.

 No answer was received by the Local Chairmen to either of these letters. Failing to receive a response, the Local Chairman forwarded the claim to the General Chairman.
                    Docket Number CL-23701


On March 26, 1979, the General Chairmen wrote V. W. Merritt, the Assistant V. P. for Labor Relations, outlining what had taken place on the property. Merritt replied to the General chairman on may 23, 1979, indicating that a valid claim did not exist and declining it if it did exist. On April 2, 1979, G. A. Jonasson, Division Manager, wrote Joseph Cipollo (the Local Chairman who had replaced the Local Chairman who had initiated the claim) and denied the claim.

 A review of the record by this Board reveals that Petitioner has abandoned its claim on points 1 and 2 and that this claim is before this Board on the time limit issue alone.

 The Organization argues that Carrier failed to disallow the instant claim within the 60 days required by Rule 36(a) end therefore the claim must be allowed as presented. This Board is in agreement with Petitioner that Carrier failed to comply with the time-limit requirement of Rule 36(a) and therefore will sustain the claim as presented on items 3 and 4. It only remains to decide when Carrier officially denied the claim and when the liability of Carrier ceases.

 It is this Board's opinion that Carrier's letter dated April 2, 1979. was a proper rejection of the claim and that Carrier's liability ceases on that day.', General Chairman McPherson was put on notice on February 13, 1979, by V. W. Merritt, Carrier's Assistant V. P. for Labor Relations, that G. A. Jonasson was the official authorized by Carrier to receive claims in the first instance in Seniority District No. 3 and he would also reply war his signature to any and all claims presented but not replied to by Mr. T. M. Hansen. Given that correspondence, the Petitioner cannot be heard to argue that the instant claim was not denied by Carrier on April 2, 1979.

        The claim shall be allowed as presented on items 3 and 4.


        FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds: e that the parties waived oral hearing;


That the Carrier and the Employes involved in this dispute are respectively Barrier and Employee within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 193+;

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

        That the Agreement was violated.


                          A N A R D


        Claim sustained in accordance with the Opinion.

                    Award Number 23550 Page 3

                    Docket Number CL-2301


                            NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                            By Order of Third Division


ATTEST: Acting Executive Secretary
 National Railroad Adjustment Board

 y
 1*7 Rosemarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant

 Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 10th day of March 1982.