STATEMENT OF CLAIM: I am having the follow ing· Disputes with the Cincinnati Union Terminal Company in baggage and mail department.
According to the lob Annual Wage Stabilization, we are guaranteed a forty-hour week but we arc not getting it. I am receiving Railroad Unemployment Compensation, $12.70 per day. That males a total., of . X12 7.00 every two weeps. I also understand that the Company is supposed to supplement the pay as they are doing at the Dayton Terminal Company. But they are not doing that in Cincinnati Terminal Company, since my termination.
Due to mail declination, the Company has rat paid the Separation Allowance they're supposed to. This is in accordance with the February 7th, 1965 Agreement.
Also as a member of the Brotherhood of Railway Clerks and Station Employee (AFL/CIO) Local 207, T have not been given any representation from the Union of which Mr. T. C. Burch is General Chairman.
Sir, at your earliest convenience, will you loot into the matter. An oral bearing is desired.
OPINION OF 130 ARD: Claimant personally handled this claim on the property and received an oral hearixtg in regard to said claim from Mr. Robert
Claimant personally filed this claim with this Board alleging that the claim involved is the February Seventh Agreement (February 7, 1065 Job Stabilization Agreement) and that under Sect;.on (3) thereof, ( Article T, Section 3), Carrier is required to supplement its pay to its employee, which it is rat doing; Claimant is receiving Railroad Unemployment Compensation of $12.70 per day, or $127.00 every two weeks; that Carrier is required to pay a separation allowance, which it is not doing; that referring to the type of business set forth under Section (3) (Article I, Section 3), Carrier has no tan miles to be used in reduction of forces, and thus Carrier could not abolish any positions without this supplemental Aizreement.
Carrier challenges the jurisdiction of this Board to hear this dispute clauning that the proper forum for hearing such a dispute as is involved herein
is before the "Disputes Committee" provided for in Article VII, Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 of the February 7, 1965 Job Stabilization Agreement.
With this contention, we agree. Claimant is relying solely on the application of the February 7, 1965 Job Stabilization Agreement claiming that Carrier violated it in this instance. Thus, since the said February 7, 1965 Job Stabilization Agreement provides the machinery far handling disputes such as is involved herein, therefore the proper forum for the determination of this dispute is said "Disputes Committee." See our Award Nos. 18925 and 18926. We will therefore dismiss this claim without prejudice.
FINDINGS. The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, after giving the parties to this dispute due notice of hearing thereon, and upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:
That the Carrier and the Employee involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and Employee 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