C 0 R R E C T E D
F orm 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 9322
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 8724
 2-BN-FO-`82
 The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Martin F. Scheinman when award was rendered.
 ( International Brotherhood of Firemen & Oilers
 Parties to Dispute:
 Burlington Northern Railroad Company

 Dispute: Claim of Employer:







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 employer 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 relevant facts in this case are not disputed. Claimant, R. S. Emry, was, at the time this dispute arose, employed as a laborer at Carrier's shops at Lincoln, Nebraska. Claimant was absent from work due to illness on January 2 and 3, 1979. When he attempted to protect his assignment on January 4, 1979, he was not permitted to do so without furnishing a doctor's release.

 On January 5, 1979, Claimant appeared at the doctor's office to secure the release. While he was there, a dispute arose as to who would pay for his physical examination. At this point, Shop Superintendent E. J. Spomer was called to the doctor's office. Spomer informed Claimant that he could return to work on January 8, 1979 without having to furnish a physician's release. However, he also told Claimant that he would not be paid for eight hours work for both January 4 and 5, 1979. As a result on January 14, 1979, the Organization filed a claim on Claimant's behalf for eight hours' pay at the pro rata rate for the two days.

 The claim was handled in the usual manner on the property until February 15, 1980. On that date, Superintendent Spomer wrote to J. J. Riggins, Local
 Form 1 Award No. 9322
 Page 2 Docket No. 8724
 2-BN-FO-'82

 Chairman, Local #1204, IBF&0, Havelock Shops. Spomer indicated that he had concluded that Claimant should, indeed, be paid for January 4 and 5, 1979. Spomer further indicated that "this settlement does not set a precedent and will not be referred to in future disputes of this nature". Riggins accepted the terms of the settlement by affirming his signature to Spomer's letter. Claimant: Emry was subsequently paid for January 4 and 5, 1979.

 Despite this "settlement", the Organization appealed the case to this Board for determination. In response to Carrier's claim that the case is now moot, the Organization contends that the Carrier is seeking to introduce documents not submitted into evidence on the property in clear violation of Circular 1 of the rules of this Board. In addition, the Organization argues that the case is not moot because Claimant was unjustly denied the right to protect his assignment on January 4 and 5, 1979 in violation of Rule 15 F. Further, according to the Organization, the Claimant was disciplined without an investigation in violation of Rule 28a.

 Carrier insists that the case is now moot. It notes that the claim was for two days pay which Claimant has received. It adds that the claim was settled with the full approval of the Organization's local chairman on the property. I1; was not settled unilaterally. Thus, in Carrier's view, there is no justifiable claim before this Board.

 One of the main purposes of a multi-step grievance procedure is to secure a resolution of labor relations disputes at the lowest possible level. While we would expect that Shop Superintendent Spomer would have made a full investigation of the matter when it was first presented tc him (i.e. in early 1979), nothing in the record or the parties' mutually agreed upon procedures prevented Superintendent Spomer from resolving the dispute prior to its submission to this Board.

 In addition, this settlement was ratified by the Organization's own representative on the property. As Referee Eischen noted (Award 21011):

It is clear to us that this claim has been fully settled. Except for his loss of pay for January 4 and 5, 1979, Claimant was not "disciplined" by Carrier. Thus, when Claimant received his two days' pay he was made whole. Accordingly, this claim has been fully settled on the property.


Form 1 Award No. 9322
 pie 3 Docket No. 8724
 2-BN-FO-182
 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
 By Order of Second Division
 Attest: Acting Executive. Secretary



Dated at Chicago,, Illinois, this 15th day of December, 1982.

The majority, in this Award, was in gross error when it failed to address the issues presented in the claim and instead chose to shirk the responsibility of determining if the Carrier violated the current collective bargaining agreement by denying the Claimant an opportunity to perform service on January 4, and 5, 1979.

 The majority indicated that "The claim was handled in the usual manner on the property until February 15, 1980." It must be noted however that on January 30, 1980, the organization had presented this claim to the Second Division, National Railroad Adjustment Board as required by Section 3, First (i) of the Railway Labor Act. The aforementioned section of the Railway Labor act mandates that claims "...shall be handled in the usual manner up to and including the chief operating officer of the Carrier designated to handle such disputes;..." The organization followed these mandates and failing to reach a satisfactory adjustment of the matter referred the claim to this Division of the National Railroad Adjustment Board.

 It was after the claim was referred to this Board that the handling of the claim was not handled in the usual manner as required by the Railway Labor Act. We would point out that on May 8, 1979, the Assistant to the Vice President, Burlington Northern, declined the claim because the incident
 r







_2_
 r





                              Don A. Hampton Labor Member