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.
By letter of July 18, 2000, the Carrier sent the Organization a notice of intent to contract upgrading HVAC units in the Division Office Building (DOB) at Vancouver, Washington. Per the Organization's request, a conference regarding the work was held in August 2000. On October 2, 2000, and outside contractor began the removal and replacement of rooftop HVAC units at the DOB. The work was completed on or about December 20, 2000.
The Organization called the Carrier and asked for a time limit extension for filing the claim. The parties agreed to extend the time limit until December 31, 2000. The Organization filed a claim. While the claim letter was dated December 22, 2000, postmarks from the U.S. Postal Service and the "received" stamp applied by the Carrier indicate that the letter was mailed on January 3 and received by the Carrier on January 9, 2001 - nine days after the agreed-to extended time limit. In its claim letter, the Organization protested that the contracted work was properly the work of BMWE-represented employees, and that the work had previously been done by them at other Carrier sites. Form 1 Award No. 37246
In its denial of the Organization's claim on February 9, 2001, the Carrier asserted that the work at issue had not solely been the work of MOW personnel. It contended that the letter of intent clearly stated its position that the project was considered beyond the Scope of the Agreement, and that it did not violate the Agreement by contracting it out. The Carrier also protested the late filing of the claim, and noted that on the basis of its lack of timeliness, the claim should be withdrawn.
In its April 6, 2001 appeal the Organization insisted that the work at issue had customarily been done by BMWE-represented employees and, in fact, had been performed by them at the same site previously. The Organization did not respond to the Carrier's procedural defense. In the ensuing correspondence on the property, the Carrier again raised the matter of timeliness. In its final letter before conferencing on the property, the Organization reiterated that it had been granted an extension, and rejected the Carrier's contention that the claim was not filed within the contractual time limits.
The Board reviewed the record carefully, particularly with respect to the initial filing of the claim and subsequent correspondence. We find merit to the Carrier's position that the claim was not filed within the contractual time limits. Despite the date on the letter - December 22, 2000 - objective irrefutable evidence from the federal post mark indicates that it was not posted at least until January 3 and was most likely not actually received in the Carrier's offices until January 9, 2001. Because the Organization requested the extension of the time limits in the first place it was particularly obligated to meet the extended deadline on time. It did not do so. In Third Division Award 36285, the Board held:
Accordingly, we need not reach, nor do we comment upon, the merits of this case. The claim is dismissed solely on the basis that it was not timely filed. Form 1 Award No. 37246
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that an Award favorable to the Claimant(s) not be made.