"Claims on behalf of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen on the Consolidated Rail Corporation (Conrail):

and one-half rate, account Carrierviolated the current Signalmen's

Agreement, particularly the Scope Rule, Rule 5-A-1(h) and

Appendix `P', when it used a management employee to perform

covered work at Avon Yard on January 11, 1997, and deprived the

Claimant of the opportunity to perform the work. Carrier also

violated Rule 4-K-1 when it failed to provide notice of the denial of

the claim within the time limits. Carrier's File No. SG-962.

General Chairman's File No. RM2976-42-0597. BRS File Case No.

10571-CR.

double time rate, account Carrier violated the current Signalmen's

Agreement, particularly the Scope Rule, Rule 5-A-1(h) and

Appendix `P', when it used a management employee to perform

covered work at Avon Yard on January 12, 1997, and deprived the

Claimant of the opportunity to perform the work. Carrier also

violated Rule 4-K-1 when it failed to provide notice of the denial of

the claim within the time limits. Carrier's File No. SG-963.

General Chairman's File No. RM2977-42-0597. BRS File Case No.

10572-CR."

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

There is found in this dispute a threshold procedural issue involving time limits for handling claims and grievances which must be examined and ruled upon before any consideration can be given to the merits of the dispute. This procedural issue is not merely an irrelevant topic which was introduced in order to divert attention from the main point under consideration but rather is a significant matter in the Board's review and determination of the issues contained in the dispute.

On this property, the parties negotiated rules Agreement contains, in pertinent part, the following language:

4-K-1. (a) . . . All grievances or claims other than those involving discipline must be presented, in writing, by the employee or on his behalf by a union representative, to the Supervisor-C&S (or other designated supervisor), within sixty (60) calendar days from the date of the occurrence on which the grievance or claim is based. Should any such grievance or claim be denied, the Supervisor shall, within sixty (60) calendar days from the date same is filed, notify whoever filed the grievance or claim (employee or his representative) in writing of such denial. If not so notified, the claim shall be allowed as presented."

via Conrail Electronic Message System dated "Saturday, 15 March 199710:56 AMET." [sic] These are facts of record which are not disputed by the parties.

From the chronology just outlined, it is clear that more than 60 calendar days were involved from the postmark date on which the claims were presented to the Carrier to the date of the Carrier's e-mail denial thereof.

The issue of timeliness of handling was discussed by the parties during the protracted handling of this dispute on the property and continued to this Board as part of the Statement of Claim for consideration by the Board.

It is the position of the Organization that the February 15, 1989 side-bar agreement quoted herein is the controlling factor in determining the time limits when U.S. Mail is used as in this instance.

"The postmark protects compliancewith protecting the timeliness forfiling a claim, issuing a denial, etc.; however, the Assistant Division Engineer's time limits do not begin to run until receipt of the claim." [sic]

The Carrier continued and enhanced this argument in its Submission to the Board by contending as follows:

". . . nowhere in the collective bargaining agreement is the postmark mentioned as the triggering event that begins the counter."

The Board does not agree with the position taken by the Carrier. The February 15, 1989 Letter of Understanding was made by the same parties who were empowered to make and amend the collective bargaining Agreement on the property. The term "from the date same is filed" as found in Rule 4-K-1(a) was modified on this property for this group of employees by the February 15,1989 Letter of Understanding to provide that ". . . when U.S. Mail is used the postmark on the envelope will govern in determining compliance with the various time limits . . . ." In this case, given these facts, the claims in question were "filed" on January 13, 1997, the postmark date of the Certified U.S. Mail that delivered the claims to the Carrier. No other conclusion is possible.