Railroad Labor Board. But the case presently before us requires a consideration of facts, some of which are not even contained in the submissions of the parties. It is fundamental, we think that one should have opportunity to meet any and all evidence that comes before the National Railroad Adjustment Board in any way dealing with his claim. This is particularly true where a failure to comply with procedural rules is not conceded. Award 1639.

We point out that Rule 7-A-2, current agreement, provides in part:

"Where it is considered that an injustice has been done with respect to any matter other than discipline, the employe affected or the duly accredited representative as that term is defined in Part 1 of this Schedule of Regulations, on his behalf, may within ten (10) days present the case, in writing, to the employe's foreman. If the decision of his foreman, which shall be in writing, is unsatisfactory, such decision may then be appealed by the employe affected or by the said duly accredited representative, on his behalf, to the master mechanic or corresponding officer. If the case is not satisfactorily adjusted, it may then be handled by the duly accredited representative with the superintendent"

Rule 8-L-1, current agreement defines a duly accredited representative as follows:

"The term `duly accredited representative' as used in Part 1 of this Schedule of Regulations, unless otherwise specifically designated, shall be understood to mean the regularly constituted committee or any member or members thereof, or an officer of the Organization signatory hereto."

The record shows that the claim was handled on the property by the United Railroad Workers of America, C. I. O., as representative of claimant. There is evidence in the records of the National Railroad Adjustment Board that the duly accredited representative of claimant is the Railway Employes' Department, A. F. of L. In other words, it is here contended that claimant is bound by the existing and controlling agreement to prosecute his own claim or handle it through the Railway Employes' Department on the property, and that a failure to so handle it defeats any right to come to the National Railroad Adjustment Board.

Clearly the case is within the jurisdiction of the Second Division as defined by the Railway Labor Act. The submissions appear to have been made as required by Circular No. 1, issued by the National Railroad Adjustment Board under date of October 10, 1934. On the face of the submissions as made, nothing appears which is inconsistant with the jurisdiction of the Second Division over the parties and the subject matter of the dispute. The fundamental question in issue here is whether or not the agreement was complied with in the handling of the claim on the property. Such an issue should be determined upon the facts after hearing where it is asserted that agreement provisions are violated. The docketing of the case does not foreclose the question of jurisdiction nor any question of compliance with conditions precedent to a valid appeal to the National Railroad Adjustment Board. Award 1639. Opportunity to be heard ought not to be denied to any party having a justiciable interest in a dispute. It is not consonant with fundamental concepts of adjusting disputes in this country and it should not be done except where necessity requires.

We feel that the case should be docketed, the necessary parties notified and a hearing held. If it then appears, after the facts are fully developed, that conditions precedent contained in the controlling agreement have not been met, then the National Railroad Adjustment Board could properly make such an award or order as the situation demands.

AWARD