GLADYS R. KOELKER, TELEPHONE OPERATOR
THE BALTIMORE AND OHIO RAILROAD COMPANY
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of Gladys R. Koelker, Telephone Operator, B. &. O. R. R. Co., Washington, D. C. Claiming pay for June 1, 1951, and all subsequent days and dates until officially reinstated with seniority unimpaired.
OPINION OF BOARD: The evidence of record reveals that there is no dispute between the parties to the controlling Agreement.
FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record, and all the evidence, finds and holds:
That the Carrier and the Employes involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and Employes within the meaing of the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934;
That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and
Upon application of the Carrier involved in the above Award, this Division was requested to interpret the same by reason of an alleged dispute between the parties as to the consideration given by the Division to merits in disposing of the case.
This request of the Carrier for an Interpretation of this Award is filed pursuant to Section 3, First, (m) of the Railway Labor Act, as amended which provides in part as follows:
This Division's decision in denying Petitioner's claim was made after thorough consideration of the dispute on the merits and agreement rules. We found that this Division had jurisdiction over the dispute. In holding that the evidence of record revealed that there was no dispute between the parties to the controlling agreement, this Division considered that the instructions given Petitioner by her representative to report to Carrier's Medical and Surgical Director for physical re-examination, in conformity with the arrangements suggested by Carrier's representative, constituted an interpretation of the agreement between the parties, and decided that Petitioner's claim was without merit because of her refusal to comply therewith.
Consequently, this Division decided that Carrier's action in this case would not be disturbed and our denial of the claim constituted final disposition of the controversy covered by Docket MS-6967.