NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION Docket Number MW-24337
Rodney E. Dennis, Referee
(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(Missouri Pacific Railroad Company
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:
(1) The Carrier violated the Agreement when it failed and refused to
allow Mr. Jimmy Flores, Jr. pay at the track foreman's rate for the work he performed
beginning August 6, 1979 (Carrier's File S 310-320).
(2) The claim as presented by General Chairman Hawkes on October 3,
1979 ,n Superinendent L. L. Carmichael shall be allowed as presented because said
claim was not disallowed by Superintendent L. L. Carmichael in accordance with
Rule 12, Section 2(a).
(3) As a consequence of either or both (1) and/or (2) above
'Difference in rate of pay between track foreman's rate and assistant
foreman's rate of pay is being claimed by and in behalf of Jimmy
Flores, Jr., SSN 461-84-5319, for all hours he works beginning August
6, 1979, and continuing so long as Mr. Flores performs foreman's duties
on Track Gang 5688 without a foreman assigned thereto."'
OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant J. Flores, Jr., a Trackman in Carrier's employ at
Fort Worth, Texas, was assigned as an Assistant Foreman on
June 13, 1979. It was a newly established position that was bulletined on April
20, 1979. At that time, the General Chairman protested that the position should
be a Foreman's position, not an Assistant Foreman's. On October 3, 1979, a claim
was filed on behalf of J. Flores, Jr., requesting that he be paid the difference
between the Assistant Foreman's pay that he was receiving and Foreman's pay, which
he should receive from August 6, 1979, for all hours worked for as long as he
continued to perform Foreman's duties.
Petitioner presents this instant claim on a time limit basis. It
contends that the claim was filed on October 3, 1979, and was not denied by
Carrier within the 60-days required by Rule 12 Section 2(a) of the Agreement.
As such, it should be paid as submitted.
Carrier contends that the claim was not filed within 60 days of the
event that triggered the claim, as is also required by Rule 12 Section 2(a), and
that as such, the claim was untimely filed and should be dismissed.
This Board has reviewed the claim and counterclaims submitted on the record
of this case, just as it has reviewed the awards submitted for consideration. Based
on this review, it is the opinion of this Board that Carrier should have declined
the October 3, 1979, claim, stating that it was untimely filed or that it had no
merit within the 60-day period specified in Rule 12 (2)(a). Its failure to do so
constitutes default and this Board is required to sustain the claim.
Award Number 25089 Page 2
Docket Number MW-24337
FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and
all the evidence, finds and 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, 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.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division
ATTEST:
Nancy J. ,'D
r -Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 23rd day of October, 1984.