Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 29229
 THIRD DIVISION Docket No. CL-29447
 92-3-90-3-378
 The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Carol J. Zamperini when award was rendered.
 (Transportation Communications International Union
 PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
 (Maine Central Railroad Company (MEC)

 STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim of the System Committee of the Organization

(a) The Carrier acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner when it assessed discipline of 90 days suspension of Clerk D. A. Dufour on June 13, 1986.

 (b) Claimant's record be cleared of the charge brought against him on May 28, 1986, at the time and one-half rate of Clerk HF Office for December 13, 1988."

 (c) Claimant be compensated for wage loss sustained in accordance with the provisions of Rule 36(f).

 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.

 Parties to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing thereon.

 From !larch 3, 1986, through May 18, 1986, the Carrier was involved in a strike initiated by The Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes. The Claimant, along with most other employees, honored the picket line. The Carrier continued operations by utilizing management employees, as well as, permanent replacements for striking employees.

 On May 28, 1986, the Claimant was notified to appear at a formal Hearing to be held on Kay 30, 1986. The charge letter read in part:
Form 1 Award No. 29229
 Page 2 Docket No. CL-29447
 92-3-90-3-378
 It is alleged that on May 1, 1986, and on other
 occasions, you terrorized female clerks of the
 Maine Central by following them to their areas of
 residence, spit on their automobiles, and made
 threatening gestures with a chair. You are charged
 with possible violation of Guilford General Rules
 GR-C and GR-D."

The Carrier considered the evidence presented at the Hearing to be sufficient to support the charges against the Claimant. He was suspended for ninety days effective June 13, 1986.

 On June 19, 1986, the Organization appealed the Carrier's decision and requested a conference. There is no evidence the Carrier responded to this appeal. On July 9, 1986, the Organization filed a Claim on behalf of the Claimant requesting "eight (8) hours pay each day for May 19, 1986, and continuing each and everyday 13, 1986, is rescinded." Again, there is no evidence the Carrier responded to the Claim.



Even though the Organization misquoted the title of Rule 36 in its September 29, 1987, letter, one cannot escape the clear thrust of the Organization's position and Grievances Rule 36, but, rather the Time Limit on Claims (emphasis added) Rule 36. The reasoning behind the requirement that parties state with specificity either the rules v violated is to allow the other side to ascertain with relative certainty, the contention of the party proposing such and the opportunity to prepare an effective response. The Org If the Carrier had seen fit to respond to this Claim, as they were required to do, this matter could and should have been settled more expeditiously. Furthermore, th established procedures to the detriment of the other by allowing the Carrier's contention to stand on such a shallow argument.

 Neither does c:,e Board believe the Organization waived its right to raise the timeliness issue. While they were not the paragon of persistence, we feel they presented their position to the Carrier with sufficient frequency
 Form 1 Award No. 29229
 Page 3 Docket No. CL-29447
 92-3-90-3-378

 during the early handling of this case to preserve a valid claim. It would be contrary to the intent of the Parties when they developed the on-property appeals procedure, to allo until the matter became stale or the principals on the other side changed. Admittedly, the Organization is not without fault in the manner in which they pursued this Claim after July 9, 1986, or after September 29, 1987, for that matter, but the reality is the Carrier did not respond in a timely manner to either Claim. The Parties are bound to a strict observance of established time lines. There should be no exception in this case.






Attest:
        acy J. r -'Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 7th day of May 1992.