RIGHT TO SEE CARRIER RECORDS AFTER CLAIM FILED (47)

Third Division Award No. 18447 (Dorsey) 

"We reaffirm the principle that carrier is not required by agreement or otherwise to make available its records to a collective bargaining agent bent on a fishing expedition looking for information from which it might develop claims. But, after a claim has been filed, which contains in its content the procedurally indispensable substance, Carrier acts at its peril if it fails or refuses to adduce its records which contain material and relevant evidence. To hold otherwise would be destructive of the Congressional intent expressed in the Preamble and Section 2. First and Second; and, Section 3 of the Railway Labor Act."

Third Division Award No. 19653 (Blackwell)

"In the claim submitted herein the Petitioner expressly requests a joint check of station payroll records and copies of overtime slips to be made by the parties to determine overtime worked by the Agent at MK Yards, near Houston, Texas. And finally, Carrier itself, in its submission acknowledged that the Docket previously decided, Award 19651, covers the period July 29-September 30, 1968 and that the 'instant dispute covers the same factual situation starting October 1, 1968 on a continuing basis.'

"The record as a whole shows that this dispute is the same dispute which we decided in Award 19651. The information pertaining to an award of compensation, though available in that docket, is not available in the record of this docket. Thus, in this case, we must perfect the Award we have already rendered in Award 19651. Petitioner's claim seeks a joint payroll check as the means to achieve this purpose and Carrier has not raised any objection of record to such a check. Furthermore, since there were only two employees at the involved station during the claim period, we cannot conceive of any facts that would make a joint check an undue burden on Carrier. Consequently, and in conformity with our Award in 19651, we sustain the claim herein and further sustain the Petitioner's claim for a joint check of station payroll records and copies of overtime slips to be made in order to determine the amount of compensation to be paid claimant by Carrier for the claim dates covered by this claim. See Awards 14186 (Dolnick) and 16067 (House)."

Third Division Award No. 6361 (McMahon)

"(c) This portion of the claim is for a day's pay for the senior employe idle on December 13, 1950, and further states the identity of the employe to be determined by a joint check of Carrier's records. Carrier has refused the Organization to make such joint check with it, and instead made payment to an employe it states the records disclose would be entitled to such payment. This Board is of the opinion that Carrier has failed to comply with the provisions of Article 33 (d) of the Agreement in that, through its failure to make its decision as provided, the claim will be allowed. There is no ambiguity in the wording of the claim, in its request for a joint check of the records. Nor is there any ambiguity in the wording of Article 33 (c). It means exactly what it says, `claim will be allowed.' It is true Carrier tendered the Organization payment of the claim, before the appeal was filed, and that it has since paid an employe the amount as claimed, but the Organization objects to Carrier's procedure since it refuses to abide by the wording of the claim, to allow a joint check of the records. Carrier has violated the Agreement as alleged, and since the claim, section (c) requests a joint check of Carrier's records, we are of the opinion claim should be sustained in its entirety, except Operator Ruff having been paid, would not be further entitled to consideration."