Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 6953
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 6888-I
2-PC-I-' 75
( Mr. John G. Kidwell
(
Parties to Dispute:
(
( Penn Central Transportation Company
Dispute: Claim of Emploves:
...Charge being made to Penn Central Company System Shops,
Beech Grove, Indiana. Brief Description of dispute: This
notice is issued in connection with the Charge(S) Violation
of Rule's 32, 33, 34, 35 of agreement of International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. Violation of Notice of Trial Rule
6 of the I.B.E.W. I Charge inordinate and excessive delay,
and I charge Violation of my Rights and Discrimination against
a n employee of Penn Central Transportation Company. I Charge
Violation of Circular No. 1 of National Railroad Adjustment
Board, "Organization and Certain Rules of Procedure", in
accordance with the provisions of the Railway Labor Act,
approved June 21, 1934. To date I have been held out of
service from 11:30 A.M. May 3, 1974 and I charge Hardship
and my right to work.
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.
Parties to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing thereon.
Petitioner under date of June 10, 1974, filed a letter of intent with
this Division of the Board which reads in part:
"Notification is hereby given of intention to file
an Ex Pa rte submission within thirty days from the
above date."
Petitioner failed to file his submission or rebuttal to the Carrier's
submission. The Carrier in their submission state:
"Carrier submits that Petitioner's claim is procedurally
defective and must be dismissed by the Board. Carrier's specific
Form 1
Pa ge 2
Award No. 6953
Docket
No. 6888-I
2-PC-I-'75
objection is that prior to Petitioner's notice of intent
dated July 10, 1974, to file an ex parte submission with
the Board, neither Petitioner nor anyone acting on his
behalf had progressed the claim up to and including the
Carrier's final appeal officer as required by applicable
Agreernent provisions and specific requirements of Section
3, First (i) of the Railway Labor Act."
Section 3, First (i) of the Railway Labor Act reads in part:
"The disputes.. .shall be baridled in tire usual mariner up to
and including the chief operating officer of the carrier
designated
to
handle such disputes...
Circular No. 1 of the Board reads in part:
"No petition shall be considered by any division of the
Board unless the subject matter has been handled in accordance
with
the
provisions of this Railway
Labor Act..."
This Board is of the
opinion
that it must follow the mandate of
scores of
awards of this Board that requires procedural compliance with Section
3, First (i) of the Railway Labor Act and Circular No. 1 of the NRAB. Failure
to so comply compels a dismissal of the claim. The record in
this
dispute is
clear that
no claim was
ever presented to Carrier or progressed in the usual
manner a s required, and the Board has
no
alternative but to dismiss the claim.
A W A R D
Claim dismissed.
Attest: Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
By
~77_
__~
Rose
rie
Brasch - Administrative Assistant
Dated at Chicago, Illinois,
this
3rd clay of October, 1975.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division