(Erotherlbood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks,
 PARTIES "'O DISPUTE: ( Freight Handlers, Express and Station Fmploycs
 (
 (Baltimore and Ohio Chicago Terminal Railroad Company

(1) Carrier violated Rules of the effective Clerk-Telegrapher Agreement when it failed to reply, deny or allow claims filed on the respective dates of January 30, 31 and .February (:, 1982, within the allowable timo limits r:pvciffed thereby, and


(2) As a result o: ;ch improprioty, Carrier shall be required to compensate employer K. 1.. F.,_,:and, Carrier employee identification number 15811116, Marcoilles, Illinois, three (3) hours' pro rata rate ($31.6(1) for each

(late of D,cemher 9, 10, 10 11, 18, 27, 1981; January 4, 6, 8, 13, 14, 15, 18,
 20, 21, 22, 25, 26, 26, 28, 28 and 28, 1982, and

 (3) Carrier shat also he required to compensate employee K. L. England six (6) hours' pro rata rate ($63.20) for the date of January 15, 1982.

 0fINI0 N _O_F_,-_F_CA_RD;_ On January 30, 31 and Februnrv h, 19'9, the Organization
 filed a series of claims on behalf of Claimant K. 1.. Fnhland.
 The Carrier ;lid not decline the claims within sixty days of tl)o claim as
 required ;iv Rule 48. Tl,e Carrier defends itself by assorting the dispute does
 nut fall within tl·e pro%ince of the Board in t'iat such disputes are limited to
 issues involving tbo Carri!,r and its employees. T1:o Carrier argues the record
 will clearly show the Claimant was never a hon.n fide omplovoe. The Carrier's
 submission and rebuttal submission are most perstiasiv(°. The nrohlem this Roar('
 leas is with the ovidcnec before us. The Organization claim shows the Claimant
 to have a Carrier identit icatior number and asserts the Claimant was on ditty.
 The Carrier's statement of facts may, in reality, accurately reflect the status
 of the Claimant. Notwithstanding, the on-property h,ard!in;; dues not show those
 facts to have been established by otter than assertions and referonces to a
 prior dispute without submission o'. suppnrtinj; material and/or ciocnments. Since
 Lh.~ issue of the Claimant's employment status was to he cliallen'god, it should
 have been so disputed by answerinit the claims filed in arcordance with Rule 48
 which, without exception, requires disallowance withi·i sixty days trom date of
 filing and, if not, the claim is to he allowed as presented. Unlike the
 numerous awards cited by the Carrier in support of its position, this Board is
 unable to conclude that the record before us established throuvrh the submissions
 of probative evidenco that the Claimant was not a bona fide employee.



        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 Hoard has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and

        That the Agreement was violated.


                        1 !J A R D


        Claim sustained.


                              NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJDSTENT HOARD

                              Rv Order of Third Division


Attest: _
 ancy J~ r - Executive Secretary

 Dated at ChicaTo, Illinois, this 13th (!ay of June, 1935

 .J,.

CARRIER MEMBERS' DISSENT

TO

AWARD 25507, DOCKET CL-25187

REFEREE ROBERT W. MC ALLISTER


The Majority in Award 25507 properly concluded that:
 "The Carrier's submission and rebuttal submission are most persuasive." but then proceeded to completely ignore the facts of record in order to reach its conclusion and sustain the claim on the basis of a time limit violation.

 Evidence was presented showing that Claimant's service with Carrier was terminated in late 1981 and same was acknowledged by the Organization's General Chairman in a letter dated March 16, 1982.

 Further, a copy of Third Division Award 25111 involving the same parties was presented wherein the Board found in pertinent part:

      "Before the Carrier discontinued the Claimant's service on an as needed basis, he had worked 157 days in 1981. Thus, the Claimant satisfied the required number of days of compensated service, under Section 1(1). However, he was not laid off; at the insistence of the Organization, his employment was discontinued by the Carrier."


      "His sporadic employment went undetected by both the Organization and Carrier for almost 9 months. During this time, the Claimant did not acquire seniority. The fact is that he was not properly in the service of the Carrier and had no rights under the applicable

    Agreement."


The record before the Board established that Claimant had no rights under the applicable Agreement, and, accordingly, there was no requirement
 on Carrier to respond to any alleged claim presented on behalf of Claimant.

 The award is palpably erroneous and defective by the obvious failure of the Majority to consider evidence of record before the Board.

 We, therefore, vigorously dissent.

                i


    E. Yost, Carrier MLmb/r


000

JOW~<;e~

W, F. Euker,-Carrier Member

 0
 P. V. Varga, Carrier ber

 fi. F. Strunck, Carrier Member

 M. W: 7interhuj Carrier Member

 s`