Award No. 19176 Docket No. ITS-1950

NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

THIRD DIVISION

William M. Bdgett, Referee

STATEMENT OF CLAIM: I am having the following Disputes with, the Cincinnati Union Tex%zinal Company in ba-gyage and mail department.

Accordingly to the Job Annual Wage Stabilization. we are guaranteed a forty-hour weep but the are not getting it. I am receivirg Railroad L'nenzploymerat Compensation, $12.70 per day. That makes a total of $127.00 every two weeks. I also understand that 'the Company is supposed to supplement the pay as they one 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 Employer (AI'L/CIO) Local 207, I have not been given any xepreventatioa from the Union of which Mr. T. C. Burch is General Chairman.

Sir, at your earliest cvn·'erience, will you look into the matter. An oral hearing is desired.

OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant per snnally hatttl,led this claim on the property and, received an oral lzea_-irg~ in regard 'to said claim from Mr. Robert

Claimant personally :Filed 'this claim with this .13o:tz-el alle ding that the claim involved is the Februazy% Seventh Agx·ee.ment (February 7, 1965 Job Stabilization Agreem.en.t) and that under Section ( 3) thereof, (Article 1, S::ction. 3), Carrier is required to supplement its pay to its employes, which it is mot doing; Claimant is receiving Railroad Uxtet:nplo3ment Compensation of $12.70 per day, or $127.00 every two weela; that Carrier is acquired to pay a separation allowance; which it is not doing; that referring to the ty_~e 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 pOS1t1UriS'V.`1thout this supplemental Agreement.

Carrier challenges the j uris<liction of this Board to hea-r Ibis dispute claiming that the proper forum. for hearing such a dispute as is involved herein

i be-fore the "Disputes Committee" provided for in Article VII, Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, and b of the February 7, 1965 Job Stabilization Agreement.

With this contention, we agree. Claimant is relying solely on the application of the February 7, 1.966 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, 1834;

7"hat this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and