SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT NO. 605
PARTIES ) The Ann Arbor Railroad Company
TO THE ) and
DISPUTE ) Transportation-Communication Employees Union
QTJESTIO\TS
AT ISSUE: 1. With respect to the application of
Article IV, Section 6, is the Carrier
required to furnish the organization
with list of protected employees together
with the compensation guaranteed to each
such listed employee computed as set forth
in Article IV, Section 1 or 2?
2. If the answer to (1) above is in the affirmative, may Carrier, because of .failure to
furnich such list when requested, later
sustain a position that the Organization
violated Time Limit Rules even though the
Organization presented Claims for compensation under Article IV within the specified
time limit com,juted from the time the requested
information was -received from the carrier?
3. If the answer to (2) above is in the negative,
shall Carrier be required to compensate G. P.
Honold, extra purser, in accordance with
Section 2 of Article IV for the months April
and November, 1965; February, June, July,
August, September, October, November, December, 1966; and January, 1967?
OPINION
OF BOARD: Article IV, Section 6, provides as follows:
The carrier and the organization signatory hereto will exchange such data and
Award No..2.26
Case No..TCU-42-E
information as are necessary and appropriate to effectuate the purposes of
this Agreement.
On December 30, 1965, the organization requested
lists "indicating the status of employees coming within the
Telegraphers' Agreements, showing whether the employees compensation is guaranteed under Section 1 or Section 2 of Article
IV and the normal rate of compensation of the position held on
October 1, 1964, or the base period months, earnings and hours."
Carrier replied that
there was
no contractual requirement for
compensation information in connection with all employees, pursuant to Page 15 of the Interpretations, but attached a list of
employees protected under Section 1. Apparently by inadvertence,
a list of pursers covered by separate agreement with the organization was not submitted at that time.
In February, 1967, such a list was requested by the
Organization and it was expeditiously submitted. Subsequently,
Claimant, a protected employee entitled to preservation of compensation under Article IV, Section 2, filed the claim extending
back to April, 1965. Carrier considered the claim untimely and
reimbursed Claimant only for the monies due within the sixty-day
period preceding the claim. The Organization contends that compensation is due for the eleven months specified between April,
1965, and January, 1967, which were denied by Carrier.
There is no doubt that the claim was not filed in
accordance with the time limits which, according to the Interpretations, are applicable to individual claims f:~r compensation.
The question is whether Carrier's failure to provyde the information requested by the organization in December, 1965, justified
the delay in filing' until after the information was produced.
The organization cites Award 93, although in that case the delay
in filing the claim was held not to bar it because "the Employes
had sought unsuccessfully from September, 1965, on to obtain
from Carrier information about ir. Bar ton's status. It was not
until November. 16, 1966, that the information which led to the
claim was made available to the Employes.'.
_2-
Award No.
zz6
In this case no effort was made to obtain the list
of pursers for more than a year. When it was specifically
requested, it was promptly supplied. There is no doubt that
Carrier was derelict in its obligation to supply the list as
required by Article IV, Section 6, and Question No. 2 on Page 15
of the Interpretations. However, Carrier's dereliction does not
overcome the failure to comply with the time limits, particularly
where no effort was made by the organization to obtain the information it alleges was necessary. Since Carrier was not complying
with its obligations, the organization was obliged to act, not
sit back and wait indefinitely. In all cases of contract violations by a carrier, time-limit rules are applicable, barring
special circumstances as in Award No. 98.
According to Carrier, "furnishing of a list is not
an essential prereruisite in the filing of a claim." Carrier
adds that "most claims involving the February 7th Agreement are
filed without first receiving a list." Nothing in the record
indicates that there was, in fact, any basis far the Organization's contention that the filing of this claim necessitated
w"ting upon the list that Carrier furnished. But if it did,
al
then the information should have been sought promptly. Carrier's
error does not mean that time limits were expunged and a claim
could be filed years later.
A W A R D
1. The answer to Question No. 1 is that
Carrier is required to furnish a list
of protected employees but is not required
to furnish information on guaranteed
compensation except "in individual cases
as they arise."
2. The Carrier may sustain. a position that
the organization violated time-limit rules
even though the claim for compensation was
filed within the specified time limit com
puted from the time the requested information
was received.
-J-
Award No.
z.2
4~
Case No. TCU-42-B
3. The answer to Question No. 3 is No.
Milton Friedman
Neutral member
Wasaington, D. C.
November/~ ~ , 1970