NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
Paul C. Dugan, Referee
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
J. J. MILESKY
PENN CENTRAL TRANSPORTATION COMPANY
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: This is to serve notice, as required by the
rules of the National Railroad Adjustment Board, of my intention to file an
ex Porto submission on January 17, 7970, covering an unadjusted dispute between me and the Penn Central Railroad involving the question:
That the Penn Central Railroad, in abolishing my position on
December 26, 1967, and by placing me on the furlough list on February 2, 1968, did violate portions of the following
agreements; Agree
ment for Protection of Employes in Event of
Merger of
Pennsylvania
and New York Central Railroads
Effective January
1, 1964, known as
Attachment 1,
Agreement of
May 1936, Washington, D. C., Section
5 (2) (f) of the Interstate Commerce Act and Appendix D attached
to and made a part of the
Agreement for
Protection of Employes.
The abolishment notice stated "the seasonal trend in decrease in
mail traffic." as the reason for abolishment. Whereas, this position
was not abolished in previous years, and, whereas, it was not restored
after the so-called °seaso~al trend" abated, I contend that this abolishinent was in violation of Paragraph Four, Section 1 (b) of Attachment I, and in violation of Section 12 of the Agreement of May 1936,
Washington, D. C., and in violation of Section 5 (2) (f) of the Interstate Commerce Act and in violation of Paragraph
Three of
Appendix
D, which is a part of Attachment I.
And, whereas, Paragraph Four of Section 1 (b) of Attachment I
states "employes furloughed due to a seasonal requirements shall not
be furloughed in any twelve month period for a greater period than
they were furloughed during the twelve month period preceding the
date the merger is consumated," and, whereas, I was never previously
furloughed, I should have been reinstated to my previous position on
February 2, 1968, rather than, being placed on furlough.
OPINION OF BOARD: It is clear from the record that the claim the
Petitioner is attempting to assert bofore this Board was not handlxd on the
property of the Carrier in accordance with the provisions of the applicable collective bargaining
agreement and
as required by Section 3, First (i) of the
Railway Labor Act and Circular No. 1 of the National Railroad Adjustment
Board. Therefore, the claim is barred from consideration by the Division and
will be dismissed.
FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole
record and all the evidence, finds and holds:
That the parties waived oral hearing;
That the Carrier and the Employe involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and Employe 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 is barred.
AWARD
Claim dismissed.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of THIRD DIVISION
ATTEST: S. H. Schulty
Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 17th day of December 1970.
Keenan Printing Cu., Chicago, Ill. Printed in U.S.A.
18337