Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 9926
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 9_573-I
2-ICG-I-'84
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee George S. Roukis when award was rendered.
( L. C. Walker
Parties to Dispute:
( Illinois Central Gulf Railroad Company
Dispute: Claim of Ernployes:
I, L. C. Walker, was hired by Illinois Central Railroad, January 24,,
1952 (Johnston Car Shop, Memphis Tennessee). I was layed off October
1957 and was called back to work in August 1963. During the long and
tedious layoff, my family and I endured much hardship. This prompted
me to seek work elsewhere. In the same year, 1957, I went to Chicago
in hope of getting work there, (Illinois Central Railroad), but I was
always told that they were not hiring, which violated my rights
according to the System Federation No. 99 rule # 30, because they did
hire new people while I seeked employment.
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.
Parties to said dispute %ere given due notice of hearing thereon.
In the case before us, Petitioner contends that Carrier violated his recall
rights under the Agreement between System Federation No. 99 and the Illinois
Central Gulf Railroad. He asserts that Carrier failed to comply with the lay off
and recall provisions of the applicable labor agreement when during his extended
layoff from October 1957 until August 1963, Carrier hired new employes to perform
similar or comparable work.
Carrier contends that the dispute is improperly before the Board since the
asserted violations occurred approximately twenty five (25) years ago and well
outside the prescribed time limits for processing grievances under Rule 37 of the
controlling Agreement. Moreover, Carrier argues that Claimant failed to progress
this claim on the property in the manner required by the Railway Labor Act,
Section 3(a) and Section (2), rirst, Second, and Sixth, since Claimant bypassed
the utilization of the established grievance appeal procedures and presented the
instant claim directly to the Board. it avers that the Railway Labor Act and the
Collective Agreements negotiated pursuant to its explicit provisions require that
the parties to a dispute make every reasonable effort to resolve it on the
property and correlatively require a conference before a claim is presented to
the National Railroad Adjustment Board. In particular, it asserts the pertinency
Form 1
Page 2
of Section 3. First (i) of the Act, which stipulates the way a claim
should be handled. This provisions states:
Award No. 9:926
Docket No. 9.573-1
2-ICG-I-'84
"The dispute between an employee or group of employees and a carrier or
carriers growing out o f grievances or out of the interpretation or
application of agreements concerning rates of pay, rules, or working
conditions, including cases pending and unadjusted on the date of
approval of this Act, shall be handled in the usual manner up to and
including the chief operating officer of the carrier designated to
handle such disputes, but failing to reach an adjustment in this
manner, the disputes may be referred by petition o f the parties or .by
either party to the appropriate division of the Adjustment Board with a
full statement of the facts and all supporting data bearing upon the
disputes."
In addition, Carrier contends that the claim was not filed within the sixty (60)
day time limit of Rule 37, which renders it moot and cited several Divisional
Awards to affirm its position. It maintains that the claim is improperly before
the Board and urges that it be dismissed.
In our review of this case, we concur with Carrier that the claim has no
judicial standing with the Board. The facts as presented unequivocally show that
the claim was not filed and progressed on the property consistent with the time
limits and appeal procedures of the applicable collective Agreement, but it was
belatedly filed directly to the Board some twenty five (25) years after the alleged
grievance occurred. As a creature of the Railway Labor Act, as amended, we are
statutorily constrained to observe strictly the requirements that disputes be
handled in the usual manner on the property before they are appealed to this
Board. We are not a court of equity or an omnibus forum for hearing all types of
disputes; we are an appellate body whose essence and jurisdiction flows from the
Railway Labor Act. Since Claimant has not filed and progressed the claim in the
manner required by the Railway Labor Act, we are estopped from considering its
merits. The claim is void _ab initio. The usual manner of conferring with Carrier
was not complied with and the claim was filed well beyond the required time limits.
(For decisional authority, see Second Division Award Nos. 514, 3959, 3332, 3331,
1680, 762, 731. These awards involve this Carrier. See also Second Division
Award Nos. 7453, 6884, 6496, 6506, 6810, 6829, 6874, 6980, 6637 and 5998.)
A W A R D
Claim dismissed.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
Nancy, ./ ever - Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 30th day of May, 1984