Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 28595
 THIRD DIVISION Docket No. MW-27395
 90-3-86-3-634
 The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Elliott H. Goldstein when award was rendered.

 (Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (Soo Line Railroad Company

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

 (1) The Agreement was violated when the Carrier assigned B&B Bridge Tenders to perform Track Department work in the vicinity of the Minnesota River Bridge (System File 4(o) 13-2 ICC 29863 IA 060184 App. 4/800-46-B-213).

 (2) The claim as presented by General Chairman G. G. Western on May 23, 1985 to Regional Engineer T. M. Parsons shall be allowed as presented because said claim was not disallowed by Regional Engineer T. M. Parsons in ' accordance with Rule 13-1(a).



FINDINGS:
The Third Division of the Adjustment Board upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that:

 The carrier or carriers and the employe or employes involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 1934.

 This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.
Form 1 Award No. 28595
 Page 2 Docket No. MW-27395
 90-3-86-3-634

 On May 23, 1985, the Organization initiated a Claim on behalf of the Claimant claiming that Carrier improperly assigned BBB Bridge Tenders to perform certain Track Department work, including greasing the high rail in a quarter-mile long curve near the Minnesota River Bridge. When no response from the Carrier was forthcoming, the Organization on August 15, 1985, requested that the Claim be a Carrier within the sixty (60) day time limit pursuant to Rule 13-1(a).

 Carrier responded by letter dated September 11, 1985, acknowledging that the Claim would be paid but that the remedy requested by the Organization would be modified to reflect actual time spent by B&B personnel performing the disputed work. The Organization, in turn, replied on October 21, 1985, that it would appeal Carrier's decision because it "...desires to continue progression of the claim for a
Carrier's correspondence dated March 12, 1986, r--_'irms that a conference was conducted concern reaffirmed their earlier positions. There is also correspondence in the record from the Carrier to the Organization indicating that the Claim had been paid in full and Carrier considered the issue resolved.

 The Organization now asserts that in progressing this Claim to the Board, it was not the Organization's intention to obtain a pay adjustment without precedent, nor to establish the precedential value of the time limit rules set forth in Rule 13(1)(a). The Organization maintains that the issue it seeks to resolve is whether Carrier improperly assigned the disputed work on the dates in question, and on that point, the Organization contends that the work is clearly encompassed within its seniority groups and sub-departments. Notwithstanding its merits, the Organization further maintains that Rule 13(1)(a) contractually obligates the Carrier to timely disallow claims, and specifically stipulates that failure to do so results in the claim being allowed as presented. In this case, the Organization argues that Carrier improperly modified the payment to reflect actual ti Finally, in its Rebuttal before the Board, the Organization maintains that the Claim was never paid, and therefore, it should now be sustained in its entirety.

 Carrier's position is that the Board is not empowered to consider the Claim presented herein on its merits. In Carrier's view, the Board is precluded from such considerat already been allowed in accordance with Rule 13-1(a) and therefore the Claim is moot. Moreover, Carrier asserts that the Board has no power to grant declaratory relief when a time limit violation has occurred. Finally, the Carrier submits that the record shows that the Claim was paid in accordance with Rule 13-1(a), and that any new argument presented by the Organization cannot be considered.
 Form 1 Award No. 28595
 Page 3 Docket No. MW-27395
 90-3-86-3-634

 The Board has carefully considered the arguments presented and reviewed the Awards cited by the parties. Unfortunately, none of the cases referred to by the Carrier or the Organization is factually on point, and there is little that can be gleaned from the principles enumerated therein which would serve as precedent in the instant matter.

 As we view this case, the pivotal issue presented is whether the Board has jurisdiction to hear this dispute. On that point, we note that the Organization clearly requested payment to be made for Carrier's violation of Rule 13-1(a) in its letter of August 15, 1985, and Carrier thereafter agreed to issue payment of this Claim as obligated under the Agreement. Rule 13-1(a) states as follows:

Not until after Carrier agreed to such payment, without prejudice, as Rule 13-1(a) requires, did the Organization then seek to progress this case for a ruling on the merits.

 Under these circumstances, we must agree with Carrier's contention that the Board is barred from considering the instant Claim. It is not within the power of the Board to rewrite Agreement Rules but merely to interpret them as they exist. This matter was squarely joined on the property, at which time Carrier recognized a time limit default and resolved the issue in accordance with Rule 13-1(a). We are aware of no Rule or other authority which would empower or require this Board to now issue a precedential ruling on the merits of this dispute. The Organization has attempted to argue that Carrier varied the remedy requested and/or never paid the Claim, but these arguments were never presented on the property and cannot be considered at this level. We rule to dismiss the Claim.




                          By Order of Third Division


Attest: ,
      Nancy J. ~ - Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 30th day of October 1990.