This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.
On May 22, 2000, the Organization filed a claim on behalf of the Claimants, arguing that the Carrier violated the parties' Agreement when, during the period of April 16 through May 22, 2000, it used System Signal Construction Gang 7X15 to follow Maintenance of Way tie and surfacing units on the Pittsburgh East End Territory and make necessary repairs to any signal equipment damaged by them in connection with their work, in that such work previously had been performed by local forces.
The Organization asserts that the Carrier compounded its initial violation by completely ignoring the time limit provision of Rule 54. The Organization points out that it sent the original claim by certified mail and the Carrier received it on June 2, 2000. The Carrier does not dispute that it did not respond to the claim, but instead defends its inaction in its November 9, 2000 response by asserting that it did not need to respond to the claim because it lacked merit. The Organization argues that the Carrier was required, under Rule 54, to respond to its concerns whether or not the Carrier believed the claim had merit. Because the Carrier failed to respond within the 60-day time limit, the Organization asserts that the instant claim must be allowed as presented.
According to the Carrier, when a claim is void ab initio, a board of arbitration may not even consider an alleged time limit violation. The instant claim therefore should be dismissed without regard to the merits.
The record reveals that the original claim was filed on May 22, 2000. The Organization contended that the Carrier had violated the Agreement between April 16 and May 22, 2000. In a subsequent letter dated September 25, 2000, the Organization notified the Carrier of its failure to respond to the Organization's claim. The Organization asserted that pursuant to Rule 54, the claim must be allowed as presented because the Carrier failed to respond to the claim within 60 days.
The record is clear that the Carrier failed to respond to the claim within 60 days as required by Rule 54. Consequently, the Board finds that the claim must be allowed as presented. Accordingly, the 11 Claimants are entitled to the monetary award requested in the claim. Those monetary damages should be divided equally between the Claimants. Those monetary damages should consist of the payments that were made to System Signal Construction Gang 7X15 for the work with the tie and surfacing gang that occurred between the claim dates of April 16 and May 22, 2000.
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.