PARTIES TO THE nISPUTE:-
Union Pacific Railroad
 (Former Missouri Pacific Railroad Company)

Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes

 STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim of the System Committee of the
 Brotherhood that: -




OPINIQN OF BD


(ten 10 hour day) work week of System Bridge Gang No. 9300 to a

 "split-half" arrangement. The compressed or split-half work

 schedule included working eight (8) straight days in each half of

                                      AWARD NO. 9 NMB CASE NO. 9 UNION CASE NO. N.A.

                          COMPANY CASE NO. 880706 MPR 2


the month, with the number of hours distributed equally among those days so that an would employee receive no less compensation than if assigned to work forty hour weeks.

By claim letter dated August 30, 1988, sent to Manager Stoner by certified mail, return receipt requested, the BMWE protested that Carrier's action had violated Rule 14 (Forty Hour Work Week) and a Memorandum of Agreement effective August 1, 1974.

The return receipt shows that the claim letter was received in Manager Stoner's office on September 2, 1988. It is not disputed on this record that the Superintendent failed entirely to deny that claim or that Carrier did not respond in 'any way until February 1989. By letter of December 12, 1988, the General Chairman appealed to the Director of Labor Relations, reiterating the merits of the claim but also requesting payment "as presented" due to the Superintendent's undisputed violation of Rule 12, i§2(a):


                  "TIME CLAIMS AN GRIEVANG S ":


    Rule 12. Section 2. (a) All claims or grievances must be presented in writing by or on behalf of the employe involved, to the officer of the carrier authorized to receive same, within 60 days from the date of the occurrence on which the claim or grievance is based. " Should any such claim ar grievance be disallgwe . the carrier. shall, within 60.davs from the date same is filed. notify whoever filed the claim or grievance (the emolcye -or his representative) in writing of the reasons for such disallowance. If otso tifiad. the claim or odev nce hall be owed as eresent d, but this shall not be considered as a precedent or waiver of the contentions of the carrier as to other similar claims or grievances. (Emphasis added).

By letter of February 9, 1989, Carrier responded with an assertion that the original claim was-"vague and indefinite," that the damages claimed were excessive, and denying the claim on its


merits. But Carrier made no reference to the Superintendent's

                                      P,3 ND.55&7 AWARD NO. 9 NMB CASE NO. 9 UNION CASE NO. N.A.

                          COMPANY CASE NO. 880706 MPR 3


time limit violation.

The defenses raised belatedly by Carrier in February 1989 are more than three (3) months beyond the express sixty (60) day time limits mandated by Rule 12.2.a. Under the clear, unambiguous and self-enforcing language of Rule 12.2.a, the claim must be sustained "as presented" on a nonprecedent, nonprejudicial basis.

See NRAB Awards 3-10199, 3-10500, 3-15006, 3-17085, 3-19946, 321755 and Award 7 of Special Board of Adjustment No. 279.


                        AWARD -

1) Claim allowed "as presented" under Rule 12.2.a.

 2) Carrier shall implement this decision within thirty (30) days
      of its execution by a majority of this Board.


              Dana Edward E


        Dated at Ithaca, New Yorl~ on September 7. 1994


Union m~ [ Company Memb

 Dated a Dated at

on s6

            arL. ~ ,~ on ~:~r~ la. Iqq~