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

The carrier or carriers and the employee or employees involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employee 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.

The organization contends that Carrier violated Rule 28-2 of the Agreement when it failed to respond to the claim in a timely manner. In its view, the claim should be allowed on the basis of this 60 day time limit violation.

Carrier argues that it did not violate Rule 28-2 of the Agreement. It asserts that the reply to the claim was handled in the customary manner on the property within the time frame provided in the Agreement.

We conclude that the Organization is correct in its assertion that a response to a claim is due within 60 days, as required by the Agreement. While it is clear from the March 9, 1992 letter from General Chairman H.W. Randolph to General Manager T.F. Waver that there were ongoing discussions, this does not obviate the requirement to respond in a timely fashion. After all, the organization was still waiting for a response to its claim. Therefore, Claimants are entitled to payment from March 9 to April 7, 1992 (the date of Waver's response to Randolph). However, once denied, payment for violation of time limits cannot be awarded. Therefore, the penalty must be limited to this period of time.

Accordingly, and for the foregoing reasons, the claim is sustained on procedural grounds alone. We find that the claim is without basis on the merits.

AWAR