The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in addi
tion Referee Richard F. Mitchell when the award was rendered.
TRANSPORT WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA,
A. F. of L,-C. I. O. (Railroad Division)
THE PITTSBURGH & LAKE ERIE RAILROAD COMPANY AND
THE LAKE ERIE AND EASTERN RAILROAD COMPANY
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: This case arose at McKees Rocks, Pa., and is known as Case M-255.
Mr. Charles Sheeley is the chairman of Local 1427 and he does represent the organization at this point.
The carrier did refuse to give Mr. Sheeley permission to see his committeeman on Sunday May 10, 1959.
The carrier violated Rule 43 when the carrier refused Mr. Sheeley permission to see his committeeman on May 10, 1959. This was a case of discrimination on the part of the carrier as per this rule.
The Railroad Division, Transport Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO does have a bargaining agreement, effective May 1, 1948 and revised March 1, 1956 with the Pittsburgh & Lake Erie Railroad Company and the Lake
Carrier contends the representatives should conduct exclusively organization business at locations other than on the property of the carrier.
Organization representatives are given permission to enter carrier's property during their off-duty hours for the purpose of conferring with supervisory forces of the carrier relative to organization business.
The agreement does not support the claim ; it is without merit and should be denied.
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.
This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.
The grievance in dispute involves the refusal of the carrier upon re(luest of Local Chairman Sheeley to grant him permission to enter the Carriers car repair facilities on Sunday May 10, 1959, to see his committee, and to discuss certain matters with members of his committee, who were working on Sunday May 10, 1959. The request was denied.
Notice of intention of the organization to file an Ex parte Submission in connection with this grievance was giver. to the Board under date of May 23, 1960, more than a year later, therefore the matter in dispute involving the date of May 10, 1959 was moot before the jurisdiction of the Board was involved, so the claim will be dismissed.
The majority in Award 3675 declares that the matter in dispute involving the date set out in the claim (May 10, 1959) is "moot" because the notice of intent to file an ex parte submission in connection with this grievance was not filed until May 23, 1960. This finding is erroneous.
The employes submitted a grievance involving a practical and real question arising from the application and interpretation of the existing col- '6675-10 832