2-REA-I- '73

        The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in

        addition Referee Robert A. Franden when award was rendered.


                    ( Robert A. Ward II (Petitioner)


                    (

Parties to Dispute:

                    ( REA Express, Inc.


Dispute: Claim of Employe:
        (1) That when Petitioner (Union No.AT 265 - Lodge 1486) went on

        vacation on or about November 25, 1970, his tools were in the

        garage at REAL National Airport locked up in two chests, a

        rollaway cabinet and top box bolted together and weighing

        approximately eight hundred paunds (800 lbs.). On or about

        Friday, November 27, 1970 when his fellow employee,

        J. S. Sisk, left on vacation they were still locked up

        (Exhibit I). On the nights of November 26, 1970, November 27,

        1970, November 28, 1970, Petitioner's father and fellow employee

        found the doors to the supply cabinets locked and Petitioner's

        tool chest and tool box locked (Exhibit II). Petitioner's

        father left on November 29, 1970 for vacation and met

        Petitioner in Franklin, Pennsylvania.


        (2) On Thursday, December 3, 1970 at approximately 4 P.M. fellow

        employee, Carl Hall, went into the garage and there was a truck

        in there so he had to climb over the bumper of the truck and

        Mr. Ward's tool chest both going in and coming out. On Friday,

        December 4, 1970 the said Carl Hall saw that the tool chest had

        been moved, asked the mechanic if Ward had. come and taken his

        chest and was told "I don't know but it is gone."

        (Exhibit III)


            (3) That on or about December 3, 1970 late in the evening Petitioner had returned to his home in Virginia from his -vacation in Pennsylvania.


        (4) That on or about Friday, December 4, 1970 Petitioner returned to

            the REA Office at National Airport to pick up his pay check and I


            learned that his tools were missing.

            i


        (5) That on or about Monday, December 7, 1970 when he returned to


            work Petitioner made police theft report and reported the theft of his tools to his supervisor, Charles Rockwell, who promptly

reported the theft to the Company and assured Petitioner that i
 ' no further action was necessary on his part and that reimburse-
            ment was forthcoming.


                                                                I

                                                        ,x .


Form 1 Award No. 6520
 Page 2 Docket No. 6380-h
 2-REA-I- ' 73
 (6) That in or about January, 1971 the tools of Geary Coffman and
 Andrew Brown, fellow employees of Petitioner, were stolen and
 they were promptly reimbursed.

            (7) That thefts were rife at National Airport, Washington, D. C. at this time.


            (8) That previously, on or about September, 1970, Petitioner had made a complete inventory of his personal tools as required by Rule 38 of the Agreement between REA Express and its employees as represented by the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers effective January 1, 1970 and the value of such tools as ascertainable amounted to $1,297.17, plus the impact extensions which were listed but not then valued but which have since been replaced for about $10.00; Phillips Offset P120 which were worth about $2.50; Phillips Offset P340 which were worth about $2.50 and Chains worth about $25.00, so that the total loss was approximately $1,337.17. (A copy of Petitioner's inventory is attached as Exhibit IVA and IYb).


            (9) That Petitioner made repeated oral inquiries of Charles Rockwell, District Manager of Washington, Maryland and Virginia and was informed he would be reimbursed for his tools.


            (10) On August 24, 1971, Petitioner made written inquiry of Mr. M. J. Wozniak, 433 West Harrison Street, Chicago, Illinois 60607 as to when he would be reimbursed for the stolen tools.


            (11) On October 1, 1971 he received answer to the letter to Mr. M. J. Wozniak from D. R. Lowe, Regional Manager Fleet Maintenance, stating that specific requirements for reimbursement had not been met and asking for additional information. (Letter attached as Exhibit V).


            (12) On January 18, 1972 Petitioner went to the undersigned attorney and on January 28, 1972 said attorney wrote to Mr. Lave requesting what information was still necessary. (Exhibit VI). No written reply was ever received to this letter.


(13) On February 14, Mr. John Jordan, Regional Manager Fleet Maintenance, I
    4900 Beech Place, Temple Hills, Maryland, telephoned said attorney

    requesting a copy of the letter of Mr. D. R. Lowe of October 1, 1971

    which was sent to him on February 15, 1972, and he indicated he would

    take the matter up with an official who was coming from the home

    company.

    (Exhibit VII)'


                                                          'i

1 Award No. 6520

                                            Docket No. 6380-I

                                            2-REA- r- ' 73


    (14) On march 6, 1972 Mr. Jordan was called by said attorney and still no decision had been made.


On March 30, 1972 Mr. Jordan informed, by telephone, said attorney that RFA had still not indicated when it would pay. .

 (16) On April 12, 1972 said attorney visited Louis P. Poulton., Associate
 General Counsel of the International Association of Machinists arid
 Aerospace Workers, and on April 13, 1972 in reply to Mr. Poulton's
 telephone call Mr. Pruett, Business Representative of the Inter
 national Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, filed
 a grievance immediately (Exhibit VIII and Exhibit IXa, and
 Exhibit IXb) in an effort to obtain reimbursement for the company
 or some indication as to why reimbursement was turned down .

 F ind s ;

 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 ,~'4spute are respectively carrier and employe within the meaning of the Railway wr Act as approved one 21, 193.

 This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.

 Parties to said dispute were given due notice of hearing thereon.

 This claim is based on an alleged violation of Rule 38 of an agreement which reads as follows:

 "The Company shall assume the cost risk fox loss of employees' personal tools or major portion thereof on Company premises due to theft by break-in and entry or other circumstances acceptable to the Company. The Company's liability for such loss shall not exceed the actual cost of the tools stolen. It is understood that all employees must furnish the Company with a complete inventory of their personal tools, prior to the loss. It is further understood that whenever new tools are purchased, the employee must add them to the inventory list previously furnished."

 The Carrier has denied the claim on the merits by asserting that the loss involved herein does not fall under Rule 38 and on the basis that the claim has not been perfected properly in terms of procedure.

 Let us determine if the matter is properly before this Board.

 Rule 34 of the agreement reads in part:

 "(a) Should any employee subject to this Agreement believe he
 has been unjustly dealt with, or any of the provisions of this
 Form 1 Award No. 65201
 Page 4 Docket No. 6380-.i f
 2-REA- 1- ' 73
 err
 Agreement have been violated, the claim or grievance must be
 presented in writing by or on behalf of the employee involved,
 to the supervisor or official of the Company authorized to
 receive same within twenty (20) days from the date of the
 occurrence on which the claim or grievance is based. Should
 anyy such claim or grievance be disallowed, the Company shall,
 within twenty (20) days from the date same is filed, notify
 whoever filed the claim or grievance, (the employee or his
 representative, in writing, of the reasons for such disallowance.
 If a decision on the claim or grievance is not given within twenty
 (20) days, the matter may be automatically appealed to the next
 highest designated representative of the Company.
 (b) If a disallowed claim or grievance is to be appealed, such appeal
 must be in writing and must be taken within twenty (20) days
 from receipt of notice of disallowance and the representative of
 the Company shall be notified in writing within that time of the
 rejection of his decision. Where a decision has not been made on
 an original. claim or grievance within twenty (20) days, the claim
 may be appealed to the next highest designated representative of
 the Company within forty (40) days from the date the claim was
 filed.
 (g) R E A Express will designate to the International Association of
 Machinists and Aerospace Workers, not more than two (2) levels of
 appeal in handling claims or grievances after which they may be
 appealed to the Vice President, Industrial Relations.
 The record is clear that the claim presented to this Board for adjudication
 has never been appealed to the Vice President of Industrial Relations in accordance
 with Rule 34. We mast hold, therefore, that the instant claim is not properly before
 this Board.

 We have held many times that we did not have jurisdiction to adjudicate claims that have not been presented in accordance with the procedures established by the parties. Under the Railway Labor Act, Section 3(i) and the Rules anal Procedures of this Board., Circular No. 1, this Hoard has no jurisdiction over a claim which has not been handled on the property in the usual manner.

        _A W_ _A _R _D Claim dismissed.


                                NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                                By Order of Second Division


ATTEST: . ~~Cc. f. ._
            Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 18th day of June, 1973.