Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 9884
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 9718-I
 2-N&W-I-'84
 The Second Division consisted of the regular members and
 in addition Referee W. J. Peck when award was rendered.

Parties to Dispute:

Dispute: Claim of Employes:
"The Claimant, Joseph R. Bandy, claims that he has been deprived by Norfolk and Western Railway Company of $48,419.94 in back wages to this point accumulating as here and below set out and reinstatement as to seniority and reinstatement on the job;***."
FINDINGS:
The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and a1.1 the evidence, finds that:
The carrier or carriers and the employe or employes involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employes 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 Claimant involved in the instant case entered the service of the Carrier as a laborer at Carrier's Roanoke, Virginia shops on September 21, 1950. Later he was upgraded (promoted) to the position of Helper Machinist, then as Helper Apprentice Machinist and finally as Machinist on January 21, 1957. A11 of these positions were at Carrier's Roanoke shops. Claimant was furloughed from Carrier service in a reduction of forces on February 20, 1958. He was recalled to service in August of 1973. Effective May 21, 1973, Claimant was awarded an annuity under Section 3 (a) of the Railroad Retirement Act. The above cited facts of the record does not appear to be in dispute.
Carrier also alleges that in 1978 Claimant "expressed a desire to return to work with the Carrier". But that based on reports from three physicians as well as from Carrier's Medical Staff, he was not allowed to do so, and show as Exhibits an exchange of letters between different doctors, none of which are particularly helpful.



Form 1 Award No. 9884
 Page 2 Locket No. 9718--I
 2-N&W-I-'84
The Claimant also shows considerable correspondence and again none of which is particularly helpful. There is also considerable disagreement between the parties involved including disagreement among the doctors insofar as Claimant's physical capabilities and alleged infirmities is concerned and his ability or lack of same to perform the work of a Machinist.
However, before giving any consideration to any of the evidence or to the claims or contentions of either party as to Claimant's request and Carrier's refusal to return said Claimant to Carrier service, this Board must make a determination as to whether or not this claim is properly before this Board, and whether or not this Board has jurisdiction to decide the issues raisers in the Claimant's submission.




and further that:












In regards to Carrier's contention No. 1. a diligent search of the record reveals that there was no claim/grievance submitted at any stage of the grievance procedure. The closest that we can come, is the letter from Claimant's attorney dated February 23, 1981 and addressed to Carrier's Vice President of Labor Relations and reading in part:
 Form 1 Award No. 9884
 Page 3 Docket No. 9718-I
 2-N& W-I-'84
 "It would appear that Mr. Bandy is not only whole and healthy but
 he is perfectly capable of performing all of the duties as a machinist,
 not only that, but he is ready to work until full retirement.
 I would suggest that you give consideration to returning Mr. Bandy
 to work to such adjustments in pay as we may agree upon since his layoff
 and, of course, if he cannot do the job that is another matter, but I
 think you will find that he is not only able to do the job but has
 been able for a long time, even since his layoff."
Even if the above cited letter had been timely filed as a claim, and it was not, and even if it had been sent to the first Carrier Officer in the line of appeal, but it was not, it would not fulfill their requirements of a "proper claim" as it merely asks the Carrier to "give consideration" making it optional to the Carrier and also is something that Carrier has already done and decided against. The fact that no claim was submitted is also shown in Claimant's submission page 4 in which they write in part:


Therefore, Carrier's contention number 1, is correct and for the same reason Carrier's contention number 2 is correct.
Insofar as Rule violation not cited, here again the closest we can come is in page 2 of Claimant's submission paragraph 7, wherein they refer to "violation of its contract" but without citing any Rule. This type of scatter gun allegation does not satisfy the requirements of a specific Rule violation. We find that Carrier's contention number 3 is correct.
No conference to discuss the matter, Section 2, Second of the Railway Labor Act, reads in part:


The above cited provision of the Railway Labor Act is clear, unambiguous and specific. It refers to all disputes. There is no exception, and a careful check of both submissions and all correspondence reveals that no conference was asked, no conference was granted, no conference was held. A clear disregard to the provisions of the Railway Labor Act. We find Carrier's contention number 4 to be correct. This claim clearly is improperly before this Board and must be dismissed.
 Form 1 Award No. 9884
 Page 4 Locket No. 9718-I
 2-N&W I-'84





                            By Order of Second Division


0010
ATTEST. _·

 Nancy ver - Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 9th day of May, 1984