( Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE:



1. The Carrier violates the established practice and rules of the Brotherhood, when they changed the hours of position No. 81-A-209 Voucher Statistical Clerk and added one-half hour work per day to the whole schedule, without compensation.

 2. The Carrier will pay (perk D. DeSaro, one-half hour pay per day, at the punitive rate, commencing August 10, 1979 and continuing until such time as the violation is corrected.

 OP33TION OF BOARD: On July 27, 1979 Carrier had bulletined the position of
8:30 A.M. - 12:00 noon and 12:30 P.M. - 5 :00 P.M. Saturdays and Sundays were rest
 days. Previously the assigned hours of work for this position were between 8:45
 A.M. - 12 :30 P.M. and 1:15 P.M. - 5:00 P.M. Since no bids were received for this
 position, Carrier filled it with a new hire, Ms. D. DeSaro, who subsequently filed
 s claim on September 17, 1979 averring that the Agreement was violated, particularly
 Rules 2 and 4 thereof, when the position's hours of work were changed by Carrier.
 Rule 2, which is pertinent to this dispute, is referenced as follows:



By letter dated November 16, 1979, Carrier denied the claim stating that its actions comported with all the applicable rules of the Agreement and its decision was appealed by the Genera 8, 1980· The appeal was then heard by General Superintendent., Mr. E. A. Duszak, on February 13, 1980 but the Organication contends that Carrier never responded to this appeal until June 12, 1980, well beyond. the 60 days time limit required by Rule 48. The Organization argues that the claim should be allowed consistent with the manifest intent of Rule 48 and the decisional law of this Division, since terrier's letter was untimely and procedurally defective.
                      Docket Number CL-24195 l


Carrier contends that it timely responded to the February 13, 1980 appeal as evidenced by its March 19s 1980 denial letter but the Organization asserts that it did not receive this letter until June 16, 1980 when it received Carrier's June 12,- Carrier did not respond to the February 3.3., 1980 letter until it was reminded by the Organization on two occasions, specifically, April 28, 1980 and June 12, 1980 that it failed to deny the claim is timely fashion. Moreover, the Organization contends that th the appeals hearing officer, who heard the February 13, 1980 appeal.

 Carrier avers that it complied with the Agreement end bulletined the position in accordance with its rights wader Rule 2 end notes that it was not eatooped from. effectuating this reversion. It argues that the Organization cannot cite a basic day or basic week rule that would support its argumentative contentions or rely upon Rule 4 (overtime) without calling attention to a contradictory rule.

 In our review of this case, we agree with Carrier's position on the substantive issue of this dispute, namely, that it bad the right to change the position's hours of work as long as it complied with the hours of work requirements of Rule 2. The c of Rule 2 and was within Carrier's contractual prerogative. We do find, however, th.~t_Ca~er 'ri_o_1_atedRule 48Pwhea.it=failedto.respond within 60 days to the Organization's February 13, 1980 appeal and it was not corrected by the dubious unsigned letter of March 19, 1980· The record shows that the Organization notified Carrier on appeal.aad we believe Carrier was at least obligated to respond to this inquiry. Waiting until it was akin apprised on June 12, 1980 that it failed to answer the February 13, 1980 appeal does not lead credibility to the March 19, 1980 document. We will award Claimant one half (j) hours overtime for each day between August 10, 1979 and Joe 12, 1980 because Carrier did not timely deny the letter of appeal, but we will deny the claim in all other respects.

        FIND321GS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds sad 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, 19341

 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


        Claim sustained in accordance with the Opinion.

                        Award Number 23946 Pap 3

                - Docket Number CL-24195


                              NATIONAL RAILROAD AnTtJSTKENT HOARD

                              By Order of Third Division


ATTEST: Acting Executive Secretary
 National Railroad Adjustment Board

 By
        emerie Brasch - Administrative Assistse-


Dated at chicsgo, Illinois, this 14th day of July 1982.