PUBLIC LAW BOARD NO. 5418
Case No. 49 Award No.49
PARTIES Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
to -and-
DISPUTE: Springfield Terminal Railway Company
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
"(a) Carrier violated the rights of Claimant Chris Tirone
under the provisions of Article 1, 10 & 25 of the current
agreement when it failed to properly assign Claimant to
an overtime assignment and then failed to properly respond
to the Claimant's grievance and claim.
(b) Claimant Tirone should be compensated for 13 hours at
the Machine Operator's overtime rate for this violation."
FINDINGS: At the outset, both parties assert that the other violated the time limit provisions of
Article 25. The Organization contends the Carrier did not respond to the initial claim.
Conversely, the Carrier contends that the claimant was not timely in its submission of the initial
claim, in that they assert the initial claim was filed beyond the allotted time specified from the
date of occurrence upon which the claim is based.
The pertinent portion of Article 25 - Claims and Grievances, reads as follows:
"25.1 All claims for compensation alleged to be due must be made in
writing no later than forty-five (45) days from the date of the
occurrence on which the claim is based. The claimant, or his duly
accredited representative, must submit the claim containing the
information specified below to the Manager of Engineering
Personnel. If not presented in the manner outlined in this paragraph,
A claim will not be subject to payment or denial."
Records show the initial claim filed by the claimant was sent via priority mail, dated April 18,
2000, and received by the Carrier on April 19, 2000. The claim is based on an alleged violation
occurring on March 4, 2000.
PLB No. 5418 C-49/A-49
Page 2
The Carrier's Manager Engineering Personnel, to whom the initial claim was presented, failed
to issue a response to subject claim. Thus, the Organization requests that the Board allow the
claim, as the Carrier did not respond within 60 days as required by Article 25.3.
The Carrier asserts, the claimant's time claim dated April 18, 2000 and received by them on
April 19, 2000, was not filed within 45 days from the date of occurrence and, therefore, there
was no valid claim for the Manager to deny. The Carrier supports its position by referring to First
Division Award No. 24547 and Award No. 12 of PLB No. 1449.
Our examination of the above-cited rule and the record herein before us indicates the Carrier
is correct in its analysis. We conclude that the claimant's claim was void ab initio, in that no
valid claim existed on April 19, 2000. Therefore, we find the claim was not timely submitted and
it is dismissed without consideration of the merits of the dispute.
AWARD: The claim is dismissed.
T. W. McNulty
Carrier Member
Dated: p-.7`
.2002-
Fr ci J. Domzal
N u al Member
B. . Winter
Organization Member