"Claim on behalf of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen on the CSX Transportation Company (B&O):

Claim on behalf of W. J. Baudendistel for payment for all time lost when he was not allowed to return to work until September 9, 1996, after he received medical clearance from his physician on July 16,1996, and for the time to be credited toward his vacation qualification, account Carrier violated the current Signalmen's Agreement, particularly Rules 65 and 69, when it improperly delayed the Claimant's return to service. Carrier also violated Rule 54 when it did not provide notice of the disallowance of the claim within 60 days of the date on which the claim was filed. Carrier's File No. 15(97-53). BRS File Case No. 10477-B&O.

The initial claim was filed by letter dated November 11,1996. It involved alleged failure of the Carrier to return the Claimant to work after he had been released by his physician. The Organization maintained that the Claimant had been released to return to work on July 16, 1996, but the Carrier failed to act in a diligent manner, returning the Claimant 54 days later on September 9, 1996. Accordingly, the claim requests reimbursement for the "(38) working days" lost and not credited toward "qualification time for vacation in 1997."

The substance of the full on-property record permits the Board no alternative but to sustain the claim as presented. The Organization appealed the claim on February 26, 1997 stating:

"This claim was sent to, C. J. Nicely, the CSXT officer designated to receive claims for Signal Construction employees, the claim was sent Certified Mail, by Local Chairman (LC) R. D. Elstun, claim date November 11,1996, mailed on November 12,1996. Mr. Nicely, to this date has never responded to this claim."

The Board carefully read every piece of correspondence exchanged on the property. There was no rebuttal. No Carrier officer denied the Organization's allegation that the first level Carrier Officer failed to timely respond. The Carrier's focus on the property was solely over the merits of the claim.

The Rules of the Agreement must hold. The Board is permitted no latitude in this regard. Specifically, Rule 54 of the Agreement states that claims must be disallowed "within 60 days from the date same is filed . . . ." It further states that if the claim is not disallowed within the time limits, then "the claim or grievance shall be allowed as presented . . . ." There is ample precedent that the Board may not reach the merits of a claim if it is procedurally defective (Third Division Award 30876). Here, the Carrier offered no information and presented no defense to the alleged failure to respond to a claim filed by Certified Mail. Therefore, Rule 54 was violated and the claim must "be allowed as presented." We are without authority to move beyond the procedural error and further consider the merits. The claim for 38 days' pay must be sustained.