Award No. 16964 Docket No. MS-17712

NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

THIRD DIVISION

John B. Criswell, Referee

H. R. GRIMMER

ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD

STATEMENT OF CLAIM: That:

(A) Carrier violated the Agreement between the parties when on July 28, 1967, it dismissed H. R. Grimmer, formerly employed as a Clerk, Memphis Coach Yard Office, Memphis, Tennessee, from the service following an investigation held on July 24, 1967.

(B) Clerk H. R. Grimmer shall be reinstated to the service of the Illinois Central Railroad with all seniority unimpaired and compensated for all time lost.

The Illinois Central Railroad Company's file number on this claim is 131-296-118 Spl.

OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant admits in the record of this case that no conference was held on the property attempting to resolve the dispute. He raises three points (1) the Agreement authorizes Claimant to request a conference; (2) in Award 13453, also involving this Claimant, no conference was held on the property; (3) the conference should be held "if desirable."

We find that the Agreement's authorization is not in dispute, but in harmony with the Railway Labor Act's provisions requiring a conference on the property.

We also find that in the cited case (Award 13453), the General Chairman and the Carrier did discuss the matter in conference. Carrier's Exhibit B, page 102, of the record in that case says:

"This will confirm discussion of this case in conference."

"No matter how futile a conference may be, a conference must be held on the property prior to submission of a claim to this Board. Otherwise, this Board has no right to consider the claim in question."

That the parties waived oral hearing;

AWARD

NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD By Order of THIRD DIVISION

ATTEST: S. H. Schulty

Executive Secretary

389 Serial No. 234

NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

THIRD DIVISION

Interpretation No. 1 to Award No. 16964

Docket No. MS-17712

ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD

Upon application of the employe involved in the above Award that this Division interpret the same in the light of the dispute between the parties as to its meaning and application, as provided for in Section 3, First (m) of the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934, the following interpretation is made:

In dismissing this case, it was found that the requirements of the Railway Labor Act had not been met in the handling of the claim on the property. It was undisputed by the parties that no conference had been held prior to submission to this Board.

We now are asked to interpret the decision, particularly answering the question: Did Award 16964 decide the claim or merely determine that it was premature?

It has been held by this Board that a dismissal is a final determination. Award 9376 (Stone) said:

"The award of dismissal, whether or not it was improper was a final determination of want of jurisdiction and a final disposition of the claim."

Interpretations by this Board have held consistently that under Section 3 First (m) of the Railway Labor Act its jurisdiction is limited to interpreting or clarifying the Award itself and that it may not consider or review the correctness of the award or question the reasoning on which it was based.

Consequently, the dismissal was final and binding.

Referee John Criswell who sat with the Divis~on, as a neutral member, when Award No. 16964 was adopted, also participated with the Division in making this interpretation.

NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD By Order of THIRD DIVISION

ATTEST: S. H. Schulty

Executive Secretary