PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:
(1) The Agreement was violated when the Carrier failed and refused to pay Trackman Fred Barron mileage allowance (900 miles) for the use of his personal vehicle for traveling between his home station (Ontonagon) and Amasa, Michigan on October 26, 27, 28, November 2, 3 and 4, 1981 (System File ELST2809).
(2) The claim as presented by Assistant General Chairman F. M. Larson on December 21, 1981 to Director Field Operations W. F. Drusch shall be allowed as presented because said claim was not disallowed by Mr. W. F. Drusch in accordance with Rule 52(a).
(3) As a consequence of either or both (1) and/or (2) above, Trackman Fred Barron


OPINION OF BOARD: At the time this dispute arose, Claimant, F. Barron, held
 seniority as a Trackman regularly assigned to a section gang
 headquartered at Ontonagon, Michigan. On the claim dates in October and November
 1981 Claimant's gang was required to perform services at Amasa, Michigan, some
 seventy-five miles from Ontonagon. Claimant transported his section gang to
 and from the work site on these dates. Thereafter,. he submitted a request for
 mileage reimbursement. Carrier denied the request.
On December 21, 1981, the Organization filed this claim on Claimant's behalf. According to Carrier, it received the claim on December 24, 1981 and denied it via letter dated February 21, 1982. The Organization asserts that it did not timely receive Carrier's denial. Thereafter, the claim was handled in the usual manner on the property. It is now before this Board for adjudication.
The Organization contends that Carrier failed to timely respond to its initial claim submission. It points out that claims must be denied within sixty days of filing, or deemed accepted as presented. Here, the Organization filed its claim on December 21, 1981. On February 19, 1982, sixty days later, it had not received Carrier's response. Thus, the Organization reasons that the claim should be sustained on this ground alone.
                    Locket Number MW-25109


As to the merits, the Organization asserts that Carrier violated Rule 39 when it denied mileage reimbursement to the Claimant. That Rule reads:
        "Employes will be reimbursed for necessary expenses incurred while away from their regular outfits or regular headquarters by direction of the Management, whether off or on their assigned territory. This rule not to apply to employes traveling in exercise of their seniority rights."


In the Organization's view, Claimant was required to use his personal automobile from Ontonagon to Amasa, Michigan. Furthermore, it argues, Claimant was improperly denied mileage reimbursement in accordance with Rule 39. As such, it asks that the claim be sustained on its merits.
Carrier, on the other hand, denies that it violated the Agreement. First; it contends that it received the organization's claim via regular mail, on December 24, 1981. It answered the claim on February 21, 1982, fifty-nine days later. Thus, Carrier argues that it denied the claim within the sixty-day time limit specified by Rule 52.
On the merits, Carrier asserts that it notified Claimant that he had an option - to be furloughed or to have his assignment changed to Amasa. As such, Carrier concludes that it altered Claimant's assembly point in accordance with the Agreement and past practice on the property. Accordingly, it asks that the claim be rejected in its entirety.
Our review of the record evidence convinces us that the claim must fail. This is so for a number.of reasons.
First, the exchange of claim and denial was accomplished via regular mail. As such, no definitive record exists as to the date Carrier actually received the Organization's claim. Under these circumstances, Carrier's contention that the claim was received on December 24, 1981 is both reasonable and unrefuted. Thus, Carrier's denial on February 21, 1982 was within the sixty-day time limit. Accordingly, Carrier complied with Rule 52 here.
        As to the merits of the claim, Rule 27 reads:


        "Employes time will start and end at a regular designated assembling point for each class of employes which will be the tool house, outfit car, or shop."


That Rule refers to a "regular designated assembling point". It does not require that such point be communicated in writing to Claimant. The record indicates that Carrier verbally notified Claimant that he would be furloughed or that he could accept a change in assembly point. Nothing in the Agreement barred Carrier from so informing Claimant. Under these circumstances, Carrier changed Claimant's assembly point in accordance with Rule 27. Since Claimant's assembly point was changed to Amasa, Carrier was not obligated to reimburse Claimant for mileage expenses when he performed services at that site on the claim dates. Accordingly, and for the foregoing reasons, the claim is denied.
                    Award Number 25215 Page 3

                    Docket Number MW-25109


        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 not violated.


                      A W A R D


        Claim denied.


                          NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                          By Order of Third Division


Attest:
        Nancy J er - Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this llth day of January 1985.