In conclusion, the Carrier reasserts that the instant dispute should be either dismissed or denied in its entirety for the following reasons which are amply supported by the record:

(1) The National Railroad Adjustment is without authority to consider or determine the dispute, which clearly involves a longstanding jurisdictional question on the Carrier's property.

(2) The dispute is one which may only be resolved by negotiation and tri-party agreement between the respondent Carrier, The Order of Railroad Telegraphers and the Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks.

(3) The handling complained of is not violative of any rule of the Telegraphers' Agreement, hence the Employes' claim is entirely without support under the provisions thereof relied upon by the Employes.

(4) The Employes' long delay in pressing their claim in the instant dispute to a final conclusion by means of an appeal thereof to the Third Division requires its denial.

All that is herein contained has been both known and available to the employes and their representatives.

(Exhibits not reproduced.)

OPINION OF BOARD: In November, 1939, the Carrier installed a teletype machine (the Employes call it a printing telegraph machine) in its freight office at Oakland, California, and assigned its operation to clerical employes at that office. In May, 1940 the Carrier installed a similar machine in its freight office at Stockton, California and likewise assigned its operation to clerical employes. The Telegraphers' Organization promptly filed claims (which were later consolidated) with the Carrier requesting that operation of said machines be assigned to employes under the Telegraphers' Agreement. On October 1, 1942, the Carriers highest officer for handling such claims refused the Organization's request, asserting that the request involved a jurisdictional dispute. Over twelve years later the Organization gave this Division notice of intent to file an ex parts submission covering the Claim. This long delay between the last serious handling of the Claim on the property and its submission to this Division clearly requires the Division to refuse to accept jurisdiction thereof unless compelled to accept jurisdiction by virtue of Article V of the August 21, 1954 National Agreement.

The existence of said National Agreement has led this Division to accept jurisdiction of several cases that otherwise might have been held barred for reason of unreasonable delay. See Awards 7593, 7833, 7959 7961, 8040, 8043 (the latter two by the present Referee). In none of these cases, however, was the time gap between the most recent handling on the property and submission to this Division more than approximately five years. While the Railway Labor Act places no specific time limit on the progressing of claims, numerous awards not involving the 1954 National Agreement have approached the time element on the basis of what is reasonable under all the circumstances. This still should be done. But now one of the possible "circumstances" is existence of the 1954 National Agreement. That Agreement is only one of the circumstances to be considered, however-it is not necessarily conclusive upon this Division. Its existence and applicability do justify the Division in accepting jurisdiction of some cases that otherwise might be rejected. But somewhere there must be an end. Where the line is ultimately to be drawn we will not assume to say here, but it is certain that a gap of twelve years cannot be tolerated. Such a long delay is so obviously unreasonable that the parties to the 1954 National Agreement cannot be deemed to have intended to allow it. Indeed, even if the 1954 National Agreement had specifically and literally stated that a twelve-year delay should not be fatal, it still might be doubted that private parties stould be

permitted by private contract to obligate this Division to disregard totally the Railway Labor Act's objective of prompt and orderly settlement of disputes. That objective necessarily will be frustrated unless parties make serious effort, within a reasonable time prior to coming to this Division, to settle the dispute on the property. Moreover, the inherent objective of the Act's mandate that disputes be handled on the property as a condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction by the National Railroad Adjustment Board cannot reasonably be met where a wide gap of twelve years separates the last handling on the property from the submission of the dispute to the Board. The present Claim must be dismissed.

Since the dispute involved herein concerns a "continuing" activity the Award herein goes no further than to hold that the Division refuses to accept jurisdiction to rule upon the teletype assignments in the Oakland and Stockton freight stations from 1939 to the date of the Award.

FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, after giving the parties to this dispute due notice of hearing thereon, and uon 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 meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934;

That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute herein; and

That the Claim should be dismissed in accordance with Opinion.

AWARD