to direct the claim, namely, the Division Engineer for the Cumberland Coal Business Unit, whose identity had recently changed.
The Vice Chairman sent a revised claim letter, also dated June 20, 1996, to the former Division Engineer. The Vice Chairman sent this second letter by certified mail, return receipt requested. In doing so, however, the Vice Chairman ignored the information apparently provided by the Director Employee Relations because the Vice Chairman failed to address the claim to the then incumbent Division Engineer.
At this point the record remains in dispute. The Carrier alleges that the Superintendent Mechanical & Engineering for the Cumberland Coal Business Unit denied the claim in a timely manner. The Organization contends that it failed to receive a denial. The Organization therefore reasons that Rule 16 requires that the claim be sustained. In contrast, the Carrier insists that it provided a timely denial that remained in effect. The Carrier adds that the Organization limited the progressing of the dispute on the property to the procedural argument and therefore the claim must fail on the merits.
Extensive arbitral precedent exists about many variations of disputes concerning the need to progress disputes in a timely manner. Resolving such disputes requires a meticulous analysis of the specific facts and circumstances set forth in the record.
In the present case, a careful and extensive review of the record indicates that the Organization initiated the claim by using certified mail, return receipt requested. The evidence substantiates that the Organization sent the claim in a timely manner to the office of the Division Engineer by certified mail, return receipt requested. The Carrier failed to respond in the same manner at its peril. As a consequence, the Superintendent Mechanical & Engineering for the Cumberland Coal Business Unit, by at best electing to send the denial letter by regular mail, failed to anticipate the possibility that a need might exist in the future to prove that he Engineer had actually sent the July 12, 1996 denial letter to the appropriate person in the Organization and that the Organization had actually received the July 12,1996 letter. In the absence of such an ability to prove that the Carrier had effectuated a timely notification of denial, Rule 16 and the relevant arbitral precedent require the claim to be allowed as presented, but without being considered as a precedent or waiver of the contentions of the Carrier regarding other similar claims or grievances. Form 1 Award No. 35721
In reaching this conclusion, the Board recognizes that the Director Employee Relations initially made a good faith effort to advise the Vice Chairman of the proper method to progress the claim. Rule 16, however, does not authorize the Board to elevate such a noticeable good faith effort to a cognizable defense that excuses or offsets the failure of the Superintendent Mechanical & Engineering for the Cumberland Coal Business Unit to anticipate the need to have established an equivalent record by using certified mail, return receipt requested, to address a possible assertion by the Organization that it had not received an effective and timely notification of the denial of the claim.
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that an award favorable to the Claimant(s) be made. The Carrier is ordered to make the Award effective on or before 30 days following the postmark date the Award is transmitted to the parties.