"1. That the Chattanooga Diesel Locomotive Shop of Norfolk-Southern Railway on December 4, 1995, violated the Controlling Agreement, Rule 35, by failure to notify Employee of claim denial within Agreement time limits (more than 2 days late). At this time I had to drive to Chattanooga, while on vacation, to receive this response.

2. Denial of valid claim appeal for Controlling Agreement, Rule 35,

Carrier violation (Item I above) by Carrier's highest ranking

official on March 18, 1996.

3. That the Chattanooga Diesel Locomotive Shop of Norfolk-Southern

Railway on December 4, 1995, denied Employee's valid wage,

vacation pay, and seniority claim in association with Carrier's

violation of the Controlling Agreement and the terms and conditions

of Employee's transfer agreement with the Carrier.

4. March 18, 1996, denial of valid claim appeal (Item 3 above) to the

Carrier's highest ranking official for Carrier's violation of the

Controlling Agreement and the terms and conditions of Employee's

transfer agreement with the Carrier."

The carrier or carriers and the employee or employees involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employee 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 were given due notice of hearing thereon.

There are two procedural arguments made by the Carrier which must be resolved before any discussions of the merits are made.

Claimant has appealed this case as a violation of Rule 35 by the Carrier. The Carrier has argued that the Claimant did not raise the time limit violation on the property, ergo it can not be considered by this Board. A review of the entire file finds the Claimant did raise the time limit violation on the property on January 29, 1996. Accordingly, the Carrier's argument lacks merit.

The second procedural argument by the Carrier is that a conference on the claim was not held. The usual handling required by Section 2, Second and Section 3, First li) of the Railway Labor Act, as amended, was not followed in this case.

The record is void of any evidence that a conference was held on this claim prior to its submission to this Board. Accordingly, in line with numerous ,wards, it is not possible for this Board to reach the merits of this case. The claim is procedurally defective and must be dismissed.

,WARD