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.
By letter dated June 1, 1994 sent by certified mail, the Organization filed a claim on the Claimants' behalf seeking 270 hours pay per employee at "A" Machine Operator rate alleging that the Carrier improperly assigned track maintenance work (disassembly and removal of spikes, rail and plates) from Mile Post 26 to Mile Post 31.5 on the Lurgan Subdivision beginning April 1 through May 10, 1994.
By letter dated November 7,1994, the Organization listed claims for a conference on November 17,1994 and further stated "[i]n addition we have a number of claims for which we have no response from the first level claim officer" and that "[t]hese claims are also being appealed to you as a default issue and for discussion at our November 17, 1994 conference." This claim was listed as part of those allegedly unanswered claims.
During the processing of the dispute on the property, the Carrier produced a copy of a letter from the Carrier's Division Engineer dated August 5, 1994, declining the claim stating that the portion of trackage identified in the claim had been retired, abandoned and severed from operating trackage for some time; that the track structure was sold in its entirety to L. B. Foster, Co.; Foster was merely removing his property from the Carrier's right-of-way; and that the trackage was not operating trackage and the track material was not the property of the Carrier.
Relying upon Rule 16, each side asserted that the other's processing of the claim was untimely. The Carrier also asserted laches as a defense.
The question ofwhether the Carrier timely responded to various claims discussed at the parties' November 17, 1994 claims conference has been decided favorably to the Organization in three prior Awards between the parties. Third Division Awards 33417, Form 1 Page 3
33452 and 33623. As discussed in detail in Third Division Award 34195 issued this date, those Awards are not palpably in error and, for purpose of stability, must be followed. Those prior Awards and Third Division Award 34195 therefore govern the questions presented in this case. No matter how the Board with this sitting neutral may feel about the arguments if presented on a de novo basis, under authority of those prior Awards, we have no choice and are compelled to find that the Carrier has not sufficiently demonstrated that it timely responded to the claim. Therefore, under Rule 16.1(a), the claim "shall be allowed as presented."