"Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:

1. The Agreement was violated when the Carrier assigned MidSouth Rail

Corporation extra gang employer to repair track on SouthRail Corporation

property commencing January 12, 1998 and continuing (Carrier's File

. M0498 5194 SRL).

2. The claim as presented by Vice Chairman Lawrence A. Triche under date

of February 11, 1998 to Division Engineer J. D. Price shall be allowed as

presented because said claim was not disallowed by Mr. Price within the

sixty (60) day time limit set forth in Rule 34(a).

3. As a consequence of the violations referred to in Parts (1) and/or (2)

above, '... the most senior SouthRail Corporation employees equal to those

classifications worked by MidSouth employees should be allowed actual

hours of pay at the classification worked beginning January 12, 1998,

continuing till these violations are corrected. ***' "

On February 11, 1998, the Organization presented the instant Claim to Carrier's Division Engineer seeking pay on behalf of the most senior SouthRail employees for the work performed by the MidSouth gang. Carrier concedes that the Division Engineer did not respond to the Claim at any time. Nearly seven months later, on September 4, 1998, the Organization appealed the Claim to the Carrier's Engineer of Capital Projects. In addition to reasserting the merits, the Organization contended that the Claim was entitled to a default allowance as presented, per Rule 34(a), because of Carrier's failure to timely disallow the Claire. In its September 24, 1998 reply to the appeal, Carrier did not raise any procedural defenses whatsoever. Specifically, it did not respond in any way to the Organization's rule 34(a) default contention nor did it make any contentions that the Claim was somehow vague or lacking in specifics. Instead, the only justification offered by the Carrier to explain the work assignment was the existence of an alleged emergency situation. In the later stages of the Claim handling on the property, Carrier did raise certain procedural defenses.

On this record, we may not reach any of the issues on the merits or any of Carrier's procedural defenses. Our review of the matter is controlled by the clear and unambiguous language of Rule 34(a). It reads as follows:

(a) All claims or grievances must be presented in writing by or on behalf of the employee 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 or grievance be disallowed, the company shall, within 60 days from the date same is filed, notify whoever filed the claim or grievance (the employee or his duly accredited representatives) in writing of the reasons for such disallowance. If not so notified, the claim or grievance shall be allowed as presented, but this shall not be considered as a precedent or waiver of the contentions of the company as to other similar claims or grievances.

Accordingly, the Claim must be allowed as presented. In keeping with Rule 34(a), our decision herein is without prejudice to the merits of the Claim as they may arise in connection with future similar matters.

E. Wallin, Chairman