Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award Number 9920
 SECOND DIVISION Locket Number 10031-I
 2-C& O-I- ' 84
 The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Peter R. Meyers when award was rendered.

Parties to Dispute:

Dispute: Claim of Employes:




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 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.


Claimant, John W. Adkins, Jr., appeared and presented his claim orally to the Second Division.
Claimant, John W. Adkins, Jr., has filed. an ex parte submission claiming that the Carrier wrongfully refused to rehire him because he had been terminated by the Carrier from a machinist job in 1963.
Claimant was first employed by the Carrier in 1944 and held various positions with the Carrier until his termination in 1963. In December, 1963, Claimant was charged by the Carrier with leaving his job without permission and falsifying a time card. Claimant was given a hearing and subsequently terminated on December 27, 1963. Neither the Organization nor the Claimant appealed the decision to terminate him.
Seven years later, in 1970, Claimant sent a letter to the Carrier requesting reinstatement. The Carrier refused to reinstate or commence requalification procedures for him at that time. .
Nine years after that, the Carrier once again denied the Claimant reemployment and informed him that it is the Carrier's policy to not reemploy a terminated employe.
 Form 1 Award No. 9920
 Page 2 Docket No. 10031-I
 2-C&O-I-'84
Claimant argues that the Carrier has rehired terminated employes and, therefore, he is entitled to reinstatement. Claimant cites two examples of employes who he states had been terminated and were later rehired.
The Carrier argues several points in support of its position that the claim be denied:
1. The Claimant was not an employe of the Carrier when the dispute was filed and, therefore, Claimant is not subject to or governed by the labor contract between the Carrier and the Organization;
2. The claim is procedurally defective in that there was no on-property handling of the matter through the normal grievance procedure, including a conference with the Claimant;


Carrier argues that since the claimant was not an employe, he is not within the jurisdiction of the Board; and, therefore, the Board has no authority to consider his petition.
Carrier points to Section 3, First (i) of the Railway Labor Act which states:


The Carrier argues that the instant claim was not handled in accordance with the above procedures. Since= Adkins has failed to follow the requisite guidelines for the orderly and efficient resolution of disputes, the Carrier argues that the claim is improperly before the Board and must be dismissed.
This Board has reviewed the file and heard the arguments of the Claimant orally in a referee hearing. It has fully considered the arguments of the employe.
Pursuant to Section 1, Fifth of the Railway Labor Act, this Board is compelled to dismiss the claim for lack of jurisdiction. Section 1, Fifth of the Railway Labor Act defines "employee" as follows:

Form 1 Award No. 9920
 Page 3 Docket No. 10031-I
 2-C&O-I-'84
 any work defined as that of an employee or subordinate official in
 the orders of the Interstate Commerce Commission now in effect, and
 as the same may be amended or interpreted by orders hereafter
 entered by the Commission pursuant to the authority which is
 conferred upon it to enter orders amending or interpreting such

Clearly, Mr. Adkins is not an employe of the Carrier. Consequently, this Board lacks jurisdiction in this case.





                              By Order of Second Division


Attest: ~ ~ '
 NancyA.#*ever - Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois this .23rd day of May 1984.