DISPUTE: CLAIM OF EMPLOYE: That the seniority date now shown by the carrier for Ernest L. Dillon, boilermaker, the petitioning employe, at Atlanta, Georgia, is subject to correction because of having been illegally established.
That the carrier be ordered to restore to the petitioner his former seniority date of April 3, 1936, at Atlanta, Georgia, together with such financial restitution as will reimburse him for loss of wages due to unemployment since being deprived of said seniority date.
EMPLOYE'S STATEMENT OF FACTS: The employe was employed as boilermaker apprentice at Portsmouth, Virginia, in March of the year 1913. He was later employed at that point as journeyman boilermaker in the year 1919.
Such abandonment of shops as the carrier engaged in at Portsmouth, Virginia, in the year 1936, resulted in the employe taking employment as boilermaker in Atlanta, Georgia, beginning April 3, 1936.
The employe continuously held and exercised his seniority date of April 3, 1936, until the time he accepted a supervisory position of boiler foreman at Jacksonville, Florida, in the year 1941. His seniority date was deleted from roster after he accepted supervisory position at Jacksonville, Florida.
The employe returned to Atlanta in October, 1949, account of the aforesaid supervisory position having then been abolished. He has since worked more or less on intermittent basis account of having been deprived of his seniority date of April 3, 1936.
The employe is fifty-six years of age and has been physically able to perform the work of boilermaker ever since returning to Atlanta, Georgia, October 10, 1949.
POSITION OF EMPLOYE: It is presumed by the employe that this DIVISION of the BOARD has in its possession copies of agreement in effect between the Seaboard Air Line Railway Company and its employes repre-
The duly authorized representative of the boilermakers on this property has been contacted and he is in agreement with the carrier that the seniority dates shown above are the correct dates of the petitioner. Further, it is the carrier's understanding the petitioner has been so advised by such representative.
POSITION OF THE CARRIER: This Board cannot assume jurisdiction of this alleged dispute because:
The carrier has shown in its Statement of Facts sufficient information and facts in support of the two above contentions and feels it is unnecessary to waste its time and to burden your Board with extensive arguments supporting its position in view of the many awards made by the Second Division in support thereof. A few such awards are:
The carrier believes these awards are controlling in this case and will rely on the findings contained therein in support of its position as to jurisdiction.
FINDINGS: The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that:
The carrier or carriers and the employe or employes involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employe within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 1934.
presented his alleged grievance to this Division without handling it in accordance with Rules 31, 32 and the agreed to "Note" under Rule 33 of the governing agreement. 1725-7 259
"Should any employee subject to this agreement believe he has been unjustly dealt with, or any of the provisions of this agreement have been violated, the case shall be taken to the foreman, general foreman, master mechanic or shop superintendent, each in their respective order, by the duly authorized local committee or their representative, within ten (10) days. If stenographic report of investigation is taken, the committee shall be furnished a copy. If the result still be unsatisfactory, the duly authorized general committee, or their representative, shall have the right of appeal, preferably in writing, with the higher officials designated to handle such matters in their respective order and conference will be granted within ten (10) days of application.
All conferences between local officials and local committees to be held during regular working hours without loss of time to committeemen."
"Neither Rule 31, 32, nor 33, attempts to obligate the carrier to refuse permission to an individual employee to present his own grievance or, in hearing involving charges against him, to present his own cases personally. The effect of these rules, when an individual employee presents his own grievance or case personally, is to require that the duly authorized committee, or its accredited representative, be permitted to be a party to all conferences, hearings or negotiations between the aggrieved or accused employee and the representatives of the carrier."