Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOMD Award No. 9321
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 9233
 2-CR-EW-182
 The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Martin F. Scheinnan when award was rendered.
 ( International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
 Parties to Dispute:
 ( Consolidated Rail Corporation

 Dispute: Claim of Enployes:






Findings:
The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record sad all the evidence, finds that

 The carrier or carriers sad 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 facts is this case are not in dispute. At the time this claim arose, Claimant, G. R. Jackson, was a radio maintainer assigned to Avon Yard, Avon, Indians. At 9:20 p.m. on January 14, 1980, Claimant returned to the radio ahoy from an outside assignment. He noticed a foul odor emanating fx°om an. adjoining roar. Claimant end Foremen T. Ollier inspected the room sad found a propane tank venting. Foreman Ollier tightened the valve and removed the tank from the zoom.

 As a result of this incident, Claimant filed a grievance on January 18, 1980, which alleged that the Carrier violated Rule 8-H-1(a) of the Agreement `Then a propane gas tank was "left unattended with an open valve and leaking gas into the Radio Maintainers work roomy". For a remedy., Claimant demanded an "immediate investigation" and the building of a new radio shop for radio maintainers at the Big 4 Yard.

 In support of its claim, the Organization argues that Rule 8-H-1(a) requires the Carrier to correct sate conditions at the Avon Yard. It provides:
 Form 1 Award No. 9321
 Page 2 Docket No. 9233
 2-CR-EW-t82
 "The parties to this Agreement pledge to comply with all
 safety and health requirements in accordance with State
 end Federal Lama."

 The Organization further contends them this grievance was not timely answered by the Carrier. The grievance was filed on January 18, 1980. It was answered, more then sixty (60) days later, on April 14, 1980. Rule 4-P-1( a) of the Agreement provides that if a claim or grievance is not answered within sixty dens from the date it was filed, it "shall be allowed as presented". According to the Organization, the lateness of the answer alone requires that the claim be sustained.

 The Carrier, on the other hand, asserts that the Board is without jurisdiction to decide thin claim. It argues that this Board's jurisdiction is restricted to claims that arise "out of the interpretation or application of the Agreement concerning rates of pay, roles or working conditions" (Railway Labor Act, Section 3). Accordiag to Carrier, compliance with Federal or State safety laws does not concern "rates of pay, rules or working conditions". Furthermore,, the Carrier points out that the Organization has not introduced any evidence to shoal which federal or state safety laws have, in fact, been violated.

 An analysis of the evidence indicates that the Carrier's position moat be sustained.

 Numerous awards of this Board indicate that we are without jurisdiction to enforce legislatively created rights. In addition, Claimant has not shown that my federal or state safety laws were violated. Nor has Claimant shows that the Carrier failed to "pledge to comply" with such legs. Finally, Claimant has failed to indicate under what power we might award the requested remedies.

 Since this Board does not have jurisdiction over this claim, the lateness of the Carrier's answer to the grievance is of no consequence. As Referee 0'Brien noted (Award so. 19?66):

Accordingly, the claim must be denied.


Form 1 Award No. 9321
 pie 3 Docket No. 9233
 2-CR-EW-'82
 NATIONAL RAIIROAD ADJUST BOARD
 By Order o! Second Division
 Attest: Acting ECSestive Secretary

BY

Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 1st day of December, 1982.