Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 28800
 THIRD DIVISION Docket No. MW-27494
 91-3-86-3-745
 The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Lamont E. Stallworth when award was rendered.

PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

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

 (1) The claim as presented by General Chairman G. G. Western on June 5, 1985 to Regional Engineer G. A. Nilsen shall be allowed as presented because said claim was not d
(2) The claim as presented by General Chairman G. G. Western on June 5, 1985 to Regional Engineer G.,A. Nilsen shall be allowed as presented because the claim was not di to him on July 22, 1985) in accordance with Rules 13-1(a) and 13-1(c)."

 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, L934.

 This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.

This claim as initially filed involved an assertion that certain bargaining unit work had been a claim contended that the Claimants, who were the employees regularly assigned to perform this work during the work week, were available to perform the work on the Sunday on which it was performed.

 The claim, filed June 5, 1985, was addressed to the Carrier's Regional Engineer, and the person claims of this nature. On June 10, 1985, the Assistant Regional Engineer sent back a reply to the Organization stating that the claim was denied.

 On July 22, 1985, the Organization appealed the claim to the Carrier Officer designated to receive appeals. In this appeal, the Organization took exception to the fact that the original claim was answered by someone other than the addressee. According to the Organization, this was a violation of Schedule Rules 13(a) and 13(b). This appeal also was not answered by the addressee, but rather by the General Manager -- Engineering.
 Form 1 Award No. 28800
 Page 2 Docket No. MW-27494
 91-3-89-3-745

 The Organization objected to the fact that its appeal also was not answered by the party to whom it was addressed. The Organization appealed the case further, but it was not resolved and therefore proceeded to this Board for resolution. Only the procedural issue remains.

 The Organization contends that the Carrier violated Rule 13(a), which reads:

According to the Organization, the Carrier failed to deny the claim within the sixty-day time period because the claim was not disallowed by the "officer of the Carrier authorized to receive" the claim. The Carrier contends, on the other hand, that the rule provides only that the "Carrier" provide notification within sixty days, a were Officers of the Carrier.

 This Board previously has ruled on the issue of whether such a rule mandates that the Carrier Officer who is authorized to receive the claim must be the Officer who denies the claim as well. The Board's decisions have not been uniform.

 However, this Board concludes that those decisions which hold as a general rule that only the Carrier Officer who is designated to receive a claim may properly deny it are not supported by the language in the Rule. Furthermore, there are differences between some of those cases and the case at issue here which suggests that a different result is appropriate in this case.

 The language of Rule 13(a) requires the Organization to file a claim "with the officer of the Company authorized to receive same." However, the language mandating denial within sixty (60) days states only that "the Carrier shall ... notify." If the Parties had wanted to clarify that only the Carrier Officer designated to receive the claim may notify of its denial, they could have done so with plain language to that effect. Instead of stating that "the Carrier shall notify," the Parties could have said, "the officer designated to receive a claim shall notify ....
 Form 1 Award No. 28800
 Page 3 Docket No. MW-27494
 91-3-89-3-745

 In several of the cases cited by the organization the Parties made an agreement in which they did specifically include such language. For example, in Third Division Aw claims,

In contrast, in the instant case there is no indication that the Parties had agreed to language that a claim could properly be answered only by the Party to whom it was initially addressed.

 In addition, two recent decisions of this Board involving the same Parties, agreement and location and involving the same issue have been decided by this Board. In Third Division Award 27590 this Board noted that it had considered the same issues in Third Division Award 27179 and had determined that there was no merit to the procedural claims raised by the Organization, i.e. that a claim must be denied by the Officer to whom it is addressed. The Board sees no reason to deviate from these rulings in this opinion.

 The Organization in this case has based its claim only on the automatic forfeiture provisions re and not on the merits of the original claim regarding bargaining unit work. Because this Board concludes that those forfeiture provisions do not apply the claim must be denied.




                          By Order of Third Division


Attest:
        Nancy J. r - Executive Secretary


fated at Chicago, Illinois, this 15th day of May 1991.