PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:

 1. The Carrier violated the Agreement when it refused to permit Track Laborer M. A. Wagner to displace a junior track laborer at Bangor, Michigan beginning August 1
2. The claim as presented by Assistant General Chairman J. R. Cook on August 27, 1983 to Manager-Engineering J. R. Rymer shall be allowed as presented because said claim was not disallowed by Manager-Engineering J. R. Rymer in accordance with Rule 24(h)(1)A.

 3. As a consequence of either or both (1) and/or (2) above, Track Laborer M. A. Wagner shall be allowed pay

 '. . . for each and every day that a junior man worked on this Crossing Gang, beginning with Monday was/or is called back to work in line with his legal displacement which he exercised on July 28, 1983. This claim shall be based on eight (8) hours for each date of claim as well as any incidental overtime that may have been worked by the junior employe that was called back in Mr. Wagner's place.'"

 OPINION OF BOARD: The incident giving rise to this Claim occurred on August
 1, 1983, when Claimant was allegedly deprived of his displacement rights. The Organization asser matter by letter dated August 27, 1983, and no response was received from Carrier. Petitioner again wrote to Carrier on November 23, 1983, and requested payment of the Claim original Claim. Carrier responded on January 13, 1984, indicating that there was no record of the August 27, 1983, letter having been received by Carrier. Further Carrier then asserted that the Claim was not timely and in violation of Rule 24 of the Agreement and was therefore barred.

 The record of this dispute reveals that there is no evidence whatever submitted by Petitioner in support of its contention that the Claim had been transmitted by letter of August 27, 1983. Rule 24 provides that Claims must be presented within 60 days of the occurrence upon which the Claim is based.

 The issue in this dispute has been before this Board (among many others) on a number of occasions. In Third Division Award 11505 we said:
                      Docket Number MW-26292


          "It is a general principle of the law of agency that a letter properly addressed, stamped, and deposited in the United States mail is presumed to have been received by the addressee. But, this is a rebuttable presumption. If the addressee denied receipt of the letter then the addresser has the burden of proving that the letter was in fact received. Petitioner herein has adduced no proof, in the record, to prove de facto receipt of the letter by the Carrier . . . . Upon the record before us we find that Petitioner has not proven that it presented the Claim, to Carrier, within the time limitation agreed to by the parties; and, in the absence of such proof the claim is barred . . . .


The situation in this dispute is identical to that cited supra. The conclusion too must be that the Claim was not handled in accordance with the established procedures of the Agreement and was not timely filed. The Claim is barred.

        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 Claim is barred.


                        A W A R D


        Claim dismissed.


                            NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                            By Order of Third Division


Attest:

      Nancy J. Dever - Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 23rd day of November 1987.