The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that:
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.
This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.
As noted above, this Docket combines two separate claims for review. However, because they were handled as separate claims on the property, the Carrier objects to the purported combination and asserts that this improper act is fatal to both.
Although the substance of the two claims involves similar issues, they are procedurally very different. The Carrier raised a time limitation objection in the first claim. No such contention has been advanced in the second claim.
The first claim alleged that the disputed work began on February 26, 1996. In its August 26,19% denial, the Carrier asserted the work actually began on January 2, 1996. It also provided work records to support this assertion. Because the first claim was not filed until April 15,1996, the Carrier contended the claim was in violation of the 60-day filing time limit established by Agreement Rule 12, Section 2(a). The Organization did not respond to this procedural objection on the property in any manner whatsoever. We are, therefore, bound to accept the objection as being valid and must deny the first claim.
In addition to other contentions in opposition to the second claim, such as lack of damages due to full employment, the Carrier's August 22, 1996 denial raised two matters which are in the nature of affirmative defenses. First, the Carrier asserted that Rule 6 provided it the ability to transfer employees between seniority districts. The Carrierwentontosupportthis assertion by quoting from the Organization's Submission to the Special Board established by Public Law 102-29. As excerpted, the quoted to:t appears to strongly endorse the use of transfer employees per Carrier's Rule 6 contention.
According to the second assertion, the Carrier maintained the Mediation Agreement dated February 7, 1965 permitted the use of employees across seniority district boundaries to perform the disputed work. Form 1 Award No. 36114
The organization did not respond to either assertion on the property in any manner whatsoever. Being entirely unrefuted, we must accept the defenses as having been validly proven.
Given the state of this record, we are thus compelled to deny the second claim as well.
Because of our findings herein, it is not necessary to address the Carrier's objection to the combining of the claims.
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that an Award favorable to the Claimant(s) not be made.