I. The following claim is hereby presented to the Company in behalf of Claimant Kyle Gregoire (861-91-DH031).

I claim one day's pay, at pro rata rate, for each and every day the Rouses Point, NY, Yardmaster has performed clerical duties, which were previously and exclusively performed by the clerical staff. This is in direct violation of Rule 1, the Scope of our duties. Violations occurred on the following dates: April 23, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30, May 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 15, 16, 17, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, June 5, 7, 10, 11, 13, and 14, 1991.

II. The following claim is hereby presented to the Company in behalf of Claimant W. Letoureanu, C. Carswell & S. Merchant (861- 91-DH032)

(a) The carrier violated the Clerks' Rules Agreement effective September 24, 1990, particularly Rules 1, 5, 12, 13, Appendix I and other Rules, when effective on or about April 16, 1991, they removed position and clerical duties from the Scope of the Agreement by abolishing Train Clerk Position #287, hours 0800 to 1600, location Rouses Point, NY, and assigned Yardmaster D. Longtin the clerical duties of position #28 on a continual basis.

(b) Claimants should now each be allowed eight (8) hours punitive pay based on the pro-rata hourly rate of $13.64 per day, commencing April 17, 1991 and continuing for each and every workday thereonafter, on account of this violation.

(c) That in order to terminate this claim, all clerical

duties of Position #28 must be returned to employes covered under the Scope of the Clerks' Rules Agreement.

(d) Claimants were qualified and should have been called in seniority order, subject to their availability, on a continual basis to perform the clerical duties of Train Clerk Position #28.

(e) This claim has been presented in accordance with

Rule 28-2 and should be allowed.

III. The following claim is hereby presented to the Company in behalf of Claimant Kyle Gregoire (861-91-DIi035).

I claim one day's pay at pro rata rate, for each and every day the Rouses Point, NY, Yardmaster has performed clerical duties, which were previously and exclusively performed by the clerical staff. This is in direct violation of Rule 1, the Scope of our duties. Violations occurred on the following dates: June 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 24, 25, 26, 27,28, July 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 29, 30, 31, August 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 1991."

Carrier argues that it did not violate Rule 28-2 of the Agreement. It asserts that the reply to the claims 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 claims. 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 in Claim No. II. Inasmuch as Claim Nos. I and III do not have continuous liability, they are allowed as presented.

Accordingly, and for the foregoing reasons, the claim is sustained on procedural grounds alone. As to its merits, the claim is denied.

WA