putes without obtaining a satisfactory settlement. Pertinent corresondence has born reproduced and attached hereto, identified as Brotherhood's Exhibit Nos. 1 through 8.
There is an agreement in effect between the parties, bearing an effective date of July 1, 1942, revised September 1, 1949, as amended, which is by reference made a part of the record in this dispute.
CARRIER'S STATEMENT OF FACTS: There is an agreement on this property dated September 1, 1949 between Lehigh Valley Railroad Company and Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen of America, which by this mention becomes part of this Submission.
Claimant held assignment, of Signal Testman with headquarters a camp car at Allentown, Pennsylvania.
Carrier submits at the outset that this claim was not properly presented in accordance with proper procedure for handling.
Pertinent is Carrier's Exhibit A, consisting of a letter dated Aril 3. 1968, written to the Chief Engineer in which the General Chairman, BRSofA. stated, in another claim:
In the instant case, the General Chairman presented the claim to the Engineer, Signals and Communications; thus, the first step of handling, outlined by the General Chairman in his own letter April 3, 1968, required that claim be presented by the Local Chairman to the Division Supervisor or the Signal Construction Engineer. This was not done. The General Chairman initiated the claim to the Chief Engineer. Therefore, this claim is not properly before the Board and should be barred.
As to the merits of the claim, without waiving the above position, Carrier will deal with merits later.
OPINION OF BOARD: Carrier moves for dismissal of the claim on the grounds that it was not "handled in the usual manner up to and including the chief operating of the officer of the carrier designated to handle such disputes." See, Section 3, First (i) of the Railway Labor Act. The issue was timely raised on the property.
Claimant sent a standard expr·nsc form (Form No. 66) to the Signal Construction Engineer for transportation costs for week-end trips from a boarding car to his home and return, which was disallowed. Until the date of the disallowance, no dispute could come into being. The disallowance became the sub;ect matter ef the claim before us.
The General Chairman initiated the claim by presenting it to Engineer, Signals and Communications.
It is the position of Carrier that the claim should have been initially presented to the Division Supervisor or the Signal Construction Engineer to satisfy its handling in the usual manner on the property.
In a letter dated April 3, 1968, addressed to the Chief Engineer, the General Chairman made admission as to the usual manner of handling claims on the property:
This admission compels the finding that the instant claim was not handled in the usual manner. Carrier's motion to dismiss is granted.
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 meaning 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
That the claim must be dismissed for failure to handle it in the usual manner on the property.