COPP BEFORE AWARD 110. 1
 PUBLIC IA.W BOARD N0. 34 (tee No. 12)
 TRANSPORTATION a C0t,1t7(TNICATION M-iPLOMS UNION
 Va.
 ST. LOUIS-SA2a FRANCISCO RAIIklAY COMPANY

 STATMIENT OP CLAM:
On April 5s 1966., at 740 A.Ti.s brakeman Prichard on Noo 33 came in on emergency telephone at FIAzhugh' contacted the dispatcher, and the following cormmmications transpired:



This was a communication directly affecting the movement of Train No. 339 and zas a violation of Article I and other rules of the Telegraphers' Agreement. Mr. C. M. Patys senior idle extra telegraphers should now be a13.<Ymd a day's pays $21388.0 account this violation. Form CT~95 is attached; please advise if payment will be allowed.

 Carrier failed to comply with the requirements of Article V(a) of the Agreement of August 21s 1954 ass this ease. Claim was submitted on April 13& 1966 but Carrier did not give its reasons in writing for denying the claim until ,,rour letter of Se,>t. 22, 1966, file Dm4338.
Supt. Rorieqs letter of ray l8s 1966., file 3019-3=Paty doss note in my opinion., satisfy the requirement for giving reasons for declining a claim. The Superintendent neither denied that the incident occurred or that the agreement was vio2ated,% but simply declined the claim stating that we had not furnished proof of the violation.

 It is the Carrierps duty equally ;with the Organization to maintain the Anent and there is no obligation on the part of the claimant or the Organization to subidt (written proof" where filing a claim. The SuperIntendenta s statement that we failed too furnish "written proof" is not,a "reason" within the context of Article V(a).


                        (Case No. 12)


SURISI?TG~lff~:
This Board (Public Law Board No. 34,) was duly established by Agreement of the parties. aae=ted may 161, 1967, as provided for is Public Law 89-4.56 (80 State 209) and in compliance with Reations promulgated by the National Mediation Board by authority of said stvtwte (P.R. Doc.66-121,5 1). The a~orementioaaed Agreement 'is incorporated herein by reference thereto.

 The 'Award No.~ 3n the. capti4 o$ this and all, subsequent casei vitMu the jurisdiction of this Board represents the order of the issuance of the award; the "Case No.~" which mppesrs In parenthesis undpr.tho "Award No _" idantifies tile case as listed in Appartdix PA" of the May 16~ 196? Agreement of the parties.

 Opi~!JON OF BOABD_
In disallowing the claim, the officer of Carrier authorised to -receive it stateds

          "You have not furnished us written proof that this alleged violation ocourred as claimed; therefore,, J~n the absence of such written proof the time slip is returned to ;you declined."


On tb®gromd that the disallowance did not give a reason within the contemplation of Article Vo 1(a) of the August 210 1954 Agreement,, Employee move the claim be allowed as presented.

          The filing of the claim is 5.n effect a pleading which alleges facts,)

the ultimate issue as to violation of the Schedule Agreement and the remedy
 prayed tor. Spun its receipt, Title Y$ Section 2 First of the Railway Labor
 Act requires Cafticr to investigate the alleged occurrencoo Carrier is given
 60 days within which to make such investigation and to allow or disallow the claimo
 Should it decide to disallow, Article 0 requires it to set forth its reasons in
 writing. . Thus, the issues are framed and Employee are only then put to their
 proof as to disputed facts and/or interpretation, and application of the Agreement
 they allege tae have been violated. Gonsequentlyg we find that Vine reason given
 for disa118wascev snares is not a "reasonw within the ccaitemplatioh of that
 term as aaployred ixa Article G. Motion G& r~D' n
                                          PLC hso. 3LI


                      Avvraxd Ido. 1 Page 3

                      (Case No. 12)


MIMICS:
Public Law Board Noo 34' upon the whole record and a5Z the evidences finds rind holds:

        to That Carrier and Employes involved in thx,s dispute arre respeetive37 Carrier and Employes within the meaning of the Railway haber Aet' as approved June 21, 1934°,


        2o That this Board has ;jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein., and


        3o That Carrier violated Article V9 1(a) of the August 21s 197Agreement.


Claim sustained as presented.

 Carrier 3s hereby ordered to rake effective Ataard No. 19
 su~raa made by Public Law Board No® 3hr on or before September 7, 3.967

/sj John 11. Dorsey

John Ho Dorsey.. Chairman


                      Neutral Itnber


/g/ To Pm .tan, /e/ J. Ho Abbot

 To Po D®atone Carrier MWo'er J, He Abbotty Mmploy6 Member

 Dated at SpriaTlel dD I1ssouri this 7th day of August 29670