(.Charles Saggua PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

STATEMENT OF CLAIM : I am having the following Disputes with the Cincinnati

According 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 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.



Employees (AFL/CIO) Local 207, I 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 look into the matter. An oral h=aring 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, 1965 Job

Stabilization Agreement) and that under Section (3)-thereof, (Article I, Section 3), Carrier is requ

is not doing; Claimant is receiving Railroad Unemployment Compensacion 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 ~.arrier 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 dispute as is involved herein is before th 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 provided 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

        That the claim must be dismissed.


                      A WAR D


        Claim dismissed, without prejudice.


                        NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                        By Order of Third Division


ATTEST:
        Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 30th day of June 1972.