STATEMENT OF CLAIM: I am having the following Disputes with the Cincinnati Union Terminal Co!_apany in baggage and mail department.
According to the Job Annual Wage Sta'bil.izat'·on, we are yuarantacd a forty-hour week but we are not getting it. I am receiving Railroad Unemployment Compensation, $12.70 per day. That makes a total of X12;.00 every two weeks. 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 not 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 Employes (AFL/CIO) Local 207, I have not been given any representation frond the Union of which Mr. T. C. Bunch is General Cllainman.
Sir, at your earliest convenience, will you lcok into the matter. An oral hearing is desired.
OPINION Dl BOARD- Claimant personally handled this claim on the property and received an oral hearin^; in regard to said clailr. from '~lr. Robert Cxoeke, Carrier's Personnel Supervisor.
Claimant personally .filed this claim wiuh this Board alleging that the claim involved is the February aei-en.th Agreement (February 7, 1965 Job Stabilization Agreement) and that under Section (3) thereof, (Article I, Section 3), Carrier is required to supplement its pay to its employes, which it is not doing; Claimant is rece:;ving Railroad Unemployment Compensation of $12.70 per day, or $127.00 every two 5veohs: that Carrier is required to pay a separation allowance, which it is n.ot doing; that referring to the ,:ape of business set forth un,:!er Section Q) l-.;.'tide T; Sector 3), Carrier has no ton miles to lie used in x'eductioa3 of fore.es, and thus Carrier could not abolish any positions without. This supplemental A;ueemexl.t.
Carrier challenges the jurisdiction of this Board to hear this dispute clairning 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 for 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 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