i

(Advance copy.' The usual printed copies will be sent later.)

-M 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 6555

SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 6339-1

2-L&N-I-,73 .

The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in ' I

addition Referee Irwin M. Lieberman when award was rendered,

( Loyd Phillips, Petitioner

(

Parties to Dispute:

( Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company

Dispute: Claim of Employes:

.hoyd Phillips prays the National Railroad Adjustment Board to find that his discharge or "furlough" of July 30, 1971, was as a consequence of the merger of the Lousiville and Nashville and the Monon Railroad.Companies, so that he was thereby placed in a worse position with respect to his employment, contrary to the provisions of Section 5(2)(f) of the Interstate Commerce Act, and of the agreement of April 5, 1971, for Protection of Shop Craft Employees represented by the Railway Employees Department, A. F. L. - C. I. 0, which agreement incorpirates the provisions of Section 5(2)(f) of the Interstate Commerce Act.

( The relevant parts of the Act and the Agreement read as fdllows:
"In its order of approval the Commission shall include terms i
and conditions .providing that during the period of four years _ j

from the effective date of such order such transactions (mergers)

will not result in employees of the carrier or carriers by rail

road affected by such order being in a worse position with respect

to their employment." (Act cited at page 2 of the Agreement$ the

relevant parts of which are attached hereto)

"...(I)n accordance with the last sentence of Section 5(2) (f) of the Interstate Commerce Act above quoted, the parties hereto have reached agreement respecting the protection to be afforded employees of the said carrier." (Act cited at page 2 of Agreement)

Should the Board find Phillips' employment position was worsened by the
above mentioned merger, it should then find that he is entitled to reinstatement
in Active Status, and to back pay from August 1, 1971.
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
,pute are respectively carrier and employe within the meaning of the Railway Labor k
E. as approved June 21, 1934.

i

Page 2 Form 1 Award No, 6555 j

Pocket No. 6339-1 .{

2-L8dd-I- '73

This Division of the Adjustment Hoard has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein,

Parties to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing thereon.

The record in this case discloses that the claim wa$ not handled on the property in accordance with the applicable rule (Rule 54) of the collective bargaining Agreement. The claim was neither timely filed nor was it presented to the appropriate officers of the Carrier on the property, in accordance with the Agreement. Lack of experience in the procedure cannot overcome this deficiency (see Award 5250).

Section 3_ First (i), of the Railway Labor Act provides in part;

"...disputes between an employe...and a carrier..growing out of grievances ...shall be handled in the usual manner up to and including the chief operating officer of the carrier designated to handle such disputes; but, failing to reach an adjustment in this matter, the disputes may be referred by petition of the parties or by either party to the appropriate division of the Adjustment Board ...."

It is apparent from the record that the claim in this case was not handled on the property of the Carrier in accordance with the provisions of the applicable Agreement and as required by Section 3, First (i) of the Railway Labor Act and Circular No. 1 of the National Railroad Adjustment Board. The Claim is therefore barred from consideration by this Division and will be dismissed.

AWARD

Claim dismissed.

NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

. By Order of Second Division

Attest: Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Hoard .
By - r
Rosemarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 18th day of July, 1973.