"Claim on behalf of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen on the Kansas City Southern Railroad (KCS):

Claim on behalf of M. G. Jones and B. J. Headrick for payment of 15 hours each at the straight time rate, account Carrier violated the current Signalmen's Agreement, particularly the Scope Rule, when it used an outside contractor to install two power service poles for the signal system at Mile Post T127.9 and Mile Post T128.9, and deprived the Claimants of the opportunity to perform this work. Carrier also violated Rule 48 when it failed to provide notice of the disallowance of the claim within 60 days of the date on which the claim was filed. Carrier's File No. 013.31-525(1). General Chairman's File No. 96-20-01. BRS File Case No. 10342-KCS."

Parties to said dispute were given due notice of hearing thereon.

The procedural issue noted in the Statement of Claim must be addressed as a threshold matter. Rule 48 provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

"... Should any such claim or grievance be disallowed, the Carrier shall, within 60 days from the date same is filed, notify whoever filed the claim or grievance (the employee or his representative) in writing of the reasons for such disallowance. If not so notified, the claim or grievance shall be allowed as presented, but this shall not be considered as precedent or waiver of the contentions of the Carrier as to other similar claims or grievances."

According to the assertions contained in the Organization's correspondence on the property, the claim was filed on April 5, 1996 by certified mail. The Carrier's denial letter was not received until June 21, 1996. After realizing that he had violated the 60day time lim fact. The Organization went on to allege the denial letter was backdated to May 31, 1996 to avoid the time limit violation.

In its first opportunity to respond to the alleged time limit violation, the Carrier wrote only that it was ". . . unable to substantiate that the time limit was violated." It did not then, or at any later time, deny the backdating allegation nor did Carrier ever deny the alleged telephone conversation, or its content, between the Signal Supervisor and the Local Chairman.

The Organization also introduced evidence showing the Carrier's denial was not received until June 11, 1996.

Given the record of the parties' handling of this matter on the property, we find that Rule 48 must be applied as written. Accordingly, the claim must be allowed as presented.

AWARD