PARTIES TO DISPUTE:



On behalf of Mr. A. W. Bangston, who was suspended from April 12, 1980, to and including May 11, 1980, that he be paid for all time lost and that his record be cleared of any reference to this matter." (General Chairman file: C-80-227. Carrier file: SI-20 7/22/80)

 OPINION OF BOARD: An investigation was held on March 17, 1980 to determine
 whether Claimant was responsible far operating a motor car
 past the east absolute signal without permission and subsequently occupying the
 plant at Buda, Illinois without authority. Based on the investigative record,
 Claimant was assessed a thirty (30) day suspension, effective April 12, 1980,
 for violating Rule 46 of the Rules of the Maintenance of Way Department by
 occupying main track without authority between the east and west absolute signal
 at Buda on March 10, 1980. Carrier concluded that he was not within the limits
 of his CTC permit and responsible for the derailment of his motor car. This
 disposition was appealed on both procedural and substantive grounds.

 In considering this case, we must concur with Claimant's position on the procedural question raised. Claimant argues that Carrier failed to observe properly the claim denial requirements of Agreement Rule 53 (A) which requires Carrier to notify the affected employee or his representative is writing of the reasons for the claim's disallowance. There is no question of failure to comply with the sixty (60) day time limitation of Rule 53(A) since Carrier's first step denial comported with this requirement. When the claim was initially presented to the Regional Signal Engineer on April 22, 1980, he responded by letter, dated June 2, 1980, that the claim was improperly before him since the March 17, 1980 investigation was handled by the Assistant Su,Rprintendeat of Transportation at Aurora, Illinois. He denied Claimant's petition but offered no substantive response to the assertions and contentions contained in the April 22, 1980 letter of appeal. Claims thereafter, is fact,, was properly before Re ional Signal Engineer and considered a proper appeal,but he denied that Rule 53(A) was violated. (terrier argued that the aforesaid official's denial or the claim was a sufficient response to the April 22, 1980 claim and consistent with the interpretative meaning of Rule 53(A). It averred that Third Division Award No. 11178 was on point with its position since the Board previously held that the applicable time limits rule in that dispute did not require "a valid and recognizable decision of allowance". While this decision at least on its face appears persuasive, it is without precedential effect here. Rule 53 (A) requires Carrier to notify whoever filed the grievance in writing of the
 Award Number 24043
 Docket Number SG-24155

 Page 2

 reasons for such disallowance. The denial reasons might not be valid, cogently stated, defensible or recognizable, but they should address this claim. The Rule requires a denial rationale which presupposes a direct response to the claim. The Regional Signal Engineer's denial letter did not provide a reason for disallowing the claim and it was not mitigated because he believed the claim should have been filed with another Carrier official. He disallowed Claimant's petition without providing a reason and his mistaken assumption that he was not responsible for addressing the claim does not suffice as a bona fide explanation. Rule 53 (A) requires a written reason when a claim is denied and it was not provided in the June 2, 1980 denial letter. The parties Agreement is clear on this point and we are sot empowered to change it by judicial construction. Claimant's contention that he was denied independent consideration sad decision by the Regional Signal Engineer is persuasive and thus, we will sustain his claim. (See Third Division Award No. 9832).

That the parties waived oral hearing;

 That the Carrier and the Employee 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 of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and

 That the Agreement was violated.

 A W A R D
Claim sustained.

 Attest: Acting Executive Secretary

BY

Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 29th day of November 1982·

 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
 By Order of Third Division