"Claim of the System Committee of the Organization (GL-12742) that:

(a) The Carrier violated the Clerks' Rules Agreement effective July 1, 1979, particularly Rules 24, 40 and other rules when it failed to call and work Claimant Mr. Ray Deering for position Intermodal Service Representative, Symbol 153, hours 7 a.m. to 3 p.m., located at the Intermodal Terminal, E. St. Louis, IL on April 29, 2000 and instead diverted clerks Charlie Martin and Delbert Henderson from their regular assigned positions and required them to fill the vacancy on position 153.

(b) Claimant Mr. Ray Deering must now be allowed eight (8) hours pay at the punitive rate of pay for April 29, 2000 on account of this violation.

(c) Claimant was available and should have been called and worked in accordance with Rules 24 and 40.

(d) This claim has been presented in accordance with Rule 45 and must be allowed.

(e) Claim further made that Carrier violated the provisions of Rule 45(a) relating to time limits."

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.

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

The claim, which was sent by certified mail dated May 15, was received by the Carrier on May 17, 2000. The July 12 declination letter, which was sent by certified mail on July 13 was received by the Organization on July 17, 2000. By these dates, the Carrier's denial was received by the Organization on the 61st day after the Carrier received the claim.

Rule 45(a) provides, in pertinent part:

"When a claim or grievance has been presented . . . and is denied, the Company shall, within sixty (60) d as s from the date same is filed, notify whoever filed the claim or grie%ance (the employee or his representative), in writing, of the reason for such disallowance. If not so notified, the claim or grievance .ill be allowed as presented, but this shall not be considered as a precedent or waiver of the contentions of the Company as to the other similar claims or grievances."

The parties have faced this issue before. In on-property Third Division Award 36095 the Board held:

See also, on-property Third Division Awards 36096, 36097 and 36106 which followed Third Division Award 36095.

Under the authority of Third Division Award 36095 and those cited Awards following that decision, "[t]o bring predictability to their labor-management relationship, the parties should adhere to the precedent established under the time limit rule . . . ." Therefore, because the Carrier's denial was received by the Organization on the 61st day after the Carrier received the claim, the 60 day time limit provision in Rule 45 was not followed. On the basis of the above authority, the claim must be sustained as presented.

As we said in Third Division Award 34204:

". . . we cannot decide this case de novo, but we are required to defer to that prior Award. To do otherwise would be an invitation to chaos and would result in encouraging parties after receiving an

adverse decision to attempt to place a similar future dispute before another referee in the hope of obtaining a different result."

AWARD