Fourth Division Award No. 2185 (Seidenberg) 

"However, the Board also concludes that the Carrier did breach Article VI, Section 9 by the nature of the answer that Mr. Burnette filed on October 22, 1964. Mr. Burnette's answer contending that the claims were not supported by the agreement is not an adequate and comprehensive answer as to why the claims were declined. The Organization did state, albeit tersely, an adequate cause of action when it alleged that the claims were based on a breach of Article IV, Section 1. This Article is clear and unambiguous regarding the obligation to bulletin both new positions and temporary vacancies more than 30 days in duration. For the Carrier's agent to say that the claims were not supported by the agreement is not to state, with the necessary degree of specificity and detail, why the claims were not valid. There is a sound rationale underlying the requirements of Article VI Section 9. It is that if the Carrier advances a comprehensive and responsive answer to the Claim, it may well be that the Organization will desist from further prosecuting it. A vague and general answer will not secure such an objective. An answer which is vague and general is not an `answer' within the meaning of the Article in issue.

"The Board cannot accept the Carrier's theory advanced by the several awards it cited in its Rebuttal Submission which indicated that, at the initial stages of processing a claim, the Carrier is not obligated to state in full in answer and may wait until the conference is held between the General Chairman and the Carrier's Personnel Department. The Board's reading of the requisite Article does not find the slightest suggestion of such a procedure. The terms and provisions of Article VI, Section 9, must be applied in the same manner at each and every stage of grievance adjudication.

"In summary the Board finds that Mr. Burnette's answer was too general and non-specific to meet requirements for being an adequate answer as to why the claims were declined. By virtue of finding that the claims were not answered within the purview of the provisions of Article VI, Section 9, the Board has no recourse but to sustain the claims on the ground that Article VI, Section 9 was violated by the Carrier."

Fourth Division Award No. 2186 (Seidenberg)

"This case is a companion case to the case encompassed by Award No. 2185 (Docket 2167) and contains substantially the same arguments advanced by both parties, except that in the instance (sic) case, the Organization presented the additional argument, namely, the Carrier's General Manager Landreth did not properly decline the instant claim.

"Upon review of the entire record the Board must hold that its Findings in Award No. 2185 (Docket 2167) which found that Special Agent Burnette did not state an appropriate or satisfactory reason in declining the claim was a violation of Article VI, Section 9-a, are equally applicable to the instant claim."

Second Division Award No. 7371 (Franden)

"We have reviewed the many awards furnished this Board dealing with the sufficiency of a denial of a claim in terms of compliance with paragraph (a) of Article V. It has been held that 'There is no basis for the claim and it is accordingly denied' (Award 16576 Third Division), `I can find no basis for your claim' (Award 16780 Third Division), and, 'The above claim is declined account not supported by the rules of your current working agreement.' (Award 3426 Fourth Division) all meet the requirements of paragraph (a) of Article V. Award 7015 cited by the Carrier holds that a denial which states, 'Confirming conference held in Assistant Superintendent W. J. Kugler's office on January 15, between you and Mr. Kugler it is still my position not to reinstate former Carman J. A. Mance and R. J. McDowell, and your request is respectfully declined, and any further handling will have to be taken up with our personnel department at Tyler, Texas.' is sufficient.

"The letter from Carrier officer Needham dated August 15, 1975 quoted above does nothing more than state that the claim is declined. No reference is made to earlier denial letters or conferences, to the Carrier's position that no rule in the agreement has been violated, to a defense based upon the claim lacking basis or anything indicating whether the claim is being denied on the merits or on some procedural issue.

"The provisions of Article V paragraph (a) have been rather liberally construed but we believe that to hold that the letter declining the claim in the instant case meets the requirements of that paragraph would in effect remove from the agreement the words `notify whoever filed the claim or grievance (the employee or his representative) in writing of the reasons for such disallowance.'"

Second Division Award No. 7500 (Wallace)

"Carrier attempts to justify this brief declination on the grounds the Organization knew the reasons for the declination and, moreover, the requirements of Article V are that such reasons be provided within sixty (60) days from the date claim is filed and that was done at the subsequent stage. We do not read Article V in this broad way. A recent award of this Division involving the same parties, the same agreement and the same supervisor and a very similar letter reached the conclusion we adopt. That decision, Award 7371 (Franden), reviewed the awards related to this matter and concluded:

"'The letter from Carrier officer Needham dated August 15, 1975 quoted above does nothing more than state that the claim is declined. No reference is made to earlier denial letters or conferences, to the Carrier's position that no rule in the agreement has been violated, to a defense based upon the claim lacking basis or anything indicating whether the claim is being denied on the merits or on some procedural issue.

"'The provisions of Article V paragraph (a) have been rather liberally construed but we believe that to hold that the letter declining the claim in the instant case meets the requirements of that paragraph would in effect remove from the agreement the words "notify whoever filed the claim or grievance (the employee or his representative) in writing of the reasons for such disallowance."'"

Third Division Award No. 10759 (McGrath)

"The Carrier contends that it has complied with the Agreement. Carrier alleges that the denials of the Vice-President fulfilled the requirements of Article V when read in the light of prior handling, namely the prior written denials of the officers with whom the claims had been handled before appeal to the Vice-President, which prior denials stated in writing Carrier's reason for disallowing the claims, and that the General Chairman was verbally fully advised of Carrier's reason for disallowing the claims at the conference between the General Chairman and the Vice-President.

"It is quite apparent that the reasons for denial of each of the six claims made a part of this claim were not given in the July 17, 1956 letter when Mr. Dennis stated, `I declined this claim.'

"This Division has held under Article V of the August 21, 1954 Agreement that such claims are valid and must be allowed because of the Carrier's neglect of its obligation. We refer specifically to Award 9554, and others, wherein it was held:

"Award 9554:

"`It is not disputed that the Carrier declined the claim and provided Claimant with its decision in writing with an explanation of the reasons for the denial at all levels but the last before appeal to this Board. At that stage the claim was declined in writing the day after the conference on it, but without including a statement in writing of the reasons for the declination.

"`This lapse is claimed to be such a violation of Article V, 1(a) of the National Agreement of August 21, 1954 as to warrant sustaining the underlying claim without regard to its merits.

"`Article V 1(a), the well-known time limit rule, requires that claims be processed in the specified manner on the Carriers' properties and includes a requirement for written disallowance of claims accompanied by a written statement of the "reasons for disallowance."'

"However, this is not an original proposition before this Division. In cases we find undistinguishable in principle sustaining award (sic) were made - 9205, 9253, 9492.

"The record clearly indicate (sic) that although the Carrier did, following conference, give written confirmation of its decisions, it did not give written confirmation of the reasons for its denial of the claims."

Third Division Award No. 11374 (Dorsey)

"Under date of January 17, 1957 - within 60 days from the date of the amended claim - the Chief Carpenter wrote Petitioner:

"`In reference to your letter of November 20, 1956 claiming time for Chicago Terminal B&B men for work done by Wolfes Jensen Company at Galewood Freight House platform, the claim is denied.'

"Petitioner received no further communications from the Chief Carpenter. Thus, the record stands uncontroverted that the Chief Carpenter did not notify Petitioner 'in writing,' within 60 days from the date the amended claim was filed, 'the reasons for such disallowance' as required by Article V, 1.(a) of the National Agreement of August 21, 1954. Such being the facts we are compelled by Article V, 1.(a) to sustain the claim 'as presented.'"

Third Division Award No. 11987 (Rinehart)

"The August 21, 1954 Agreement also provides that when a claim is denied the Carrier shall within 60 days from the date the same is filed, notify whoever filed it, in writing the reasons for such disallowance, failing which, the claim shall be allowed as presented.

"The Organization contends that the way the last denial was handled on the property precludes us from now considering anything other than the question of an unnamed Claimant. That it was necessary for each of Carrier's Officers to when disallowing the claim to give in writing all reasons for such disallowance.

"While such a rule seems very harsh, this Board has held that the reasons for denial must be given at all levels on the property and in particular by the Carrier's highest officer. Otherwise such reason is not before us for any purpose. See Award 10759 - McGrath and Awards 9253, 9205, 9492."

Third Division Award No. 22118 (Yagoda)

"We agree with Organization that Superintendent Needham's reply of February 18, 1976 contained nothing which could reasonably be construed as reasons for his disallowance of claim which said letter announced."