NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
William M. Edgett, Referee
STATEMENT Ox' CLAT31: I am having the following Disputes with the Cincinnati Union Terminal Company irn baggage and mail department.
Accordingly to the Job Annual Wage Stabilization, we are guaranteed 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 $12 7.00 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 me 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, 1 have not been given any representation from the Union of which lIr. T. C. Burch is General Chairman.
Sir, at your earliest convenience, will you look into the matter. An oral hearing 'is desired.
OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant personally handled this claim on the property and received an oral hearing in regard to said claim from Mr. Robert Goeke, Carrier's Personnel Supervisor.
Claimant personally filed this claim with this Board alleging that the claim involved is the February Seventh Agreement (February 7, 7.965 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 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 1, Section 3), Carrier has no ton miles to be used in reduction of forces, and thus Carrier could not abolish any positions without this supplemental Agreement.
Carrier challenges the jurisdiction of this Board to hear this dispute claiming that the proper forum for hearing such a ·lispute as is involved herein
is before the "Disputes Committee" provided for in Article VII, Sections I, 2, 8, 4, and 5 of the February 7, 1966 Job Stabilization Agreement.
With thus contention, we agree. Claimant is relying solely on the application of the February 7, 1966 Job Stabilization Agreement claiming that Gamier violated it in this instance. Thus, since the said February 7; 1966 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. 1$926 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 Employer involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and Employee within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1984;
That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and