PLB 2960 -2- AWARD N0. t4f6`

We note that in the handling of the Claim on the property, a factual dispute arose as to whether the Claimant had made a specific request to work the machine in question, as the Union asserts, or as the Carrier asserts, whether he simply made a general inquiry as to why he couldn't be working-on the rail gang. In either event, there is no dispute that, regardless of the nature of the Claimant's request, it was not done in writing as required by the Rule.
It is clear that Rule 16(b) requests must be done in writing. This isn't a meaningless technicality to be overlooked by the Board. The Parties wrote such a requirement for a purpose and no doubt one of the reasons was to avoid factual controversies, like the one which arose early in this case.
In summary, since there was no valid 16(b) request made, the Claim must be denied.



                  The Claim is denied.


                  Gil Vernon, Chairman


D. b)' Bartholomay J Raz
Employe Member Ca rier Member

Dated: +- ,;~C)" q D