William M. Edgett, Referee


          (H. G. Skidmore PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (George P. Baker, Richard C. Bond, Jervis Lengdon, Jr., ( and Willard Wirtz, Trustees of the Property of (Penn Central Transportation Company, Debtor


          STATEMENT (F CLAIM: NOTICE 30. 1 - This is to serve notice, as required by the

          rules of the National Railroad Adjustment Hoard, of Mr in

          tention to file an ex parts submission on the 28th day of May 1971 covering

          as unadjusted dispute between Mr. H. G. Skidmore and the Penn Central Transpor

          tation Compaqy, involving the question:


          Has the Agreement entered into by and between the Pennsylvania-New York Central Transportation Company and Clerical Other Office, Station nod Storehouse Employes of the Pennsylvania-New York Central Transportation Company represented by Broth Handlers, Express sad Station Employes been abrogated and have my rights, rules, working conditions, fringe benefits or privileges as guaranteed by the Employes Pre-Merger Protective Agreement contract been abridged by the officials of the Penn Central Transportation Company due to Mr. E. J. Gaynor's demand, in the presence of my co-workers, that I wear a tie at all times and because of his refusal to grant me a hearing on my request? Also the action and refusal of Mr. K. F. Schwab and Mr. N. P. Patterson in not granting me an appeal or fair and impartial investigation?


          OPINION OF HOARD: Claimant was instructed by Carrier to wear a tie in the

          office. He objected, but complied with Carrier's instruc

          tions. At the same time he requested a hearing, claiming Carrier was regairrd

          to give him one by Rule 7-A-1 which reads:


                "RULE 7 -A-1 - UNJUST TREATMENT


                An employe who considers himself unjustly treated, otherwise than covered by these rules, shall have the same right of investigation, hearing on appeal and representation as provided in Rule 6-A-1, if written request wh employe's complaint is made to his supervising officer within 30 calendar days of cause of complaint."


          His request for a hearing on Carrier's demand that he wear a tie was filed on June 23, 1969. He continued to press that request, when a hearing was not greeted to him, through all steps in the grievance procedure. In addition he has argued, before this Board, the merit he sees in his complaint.


:...,,.,'I
                              Award Number 19553 Page 2

                              Docket Number M-19475


            The Hoard will not deal with the substance, if any, of Claimant's protest against the requirement that be wear a tie. His clearly stated request for a hearing under R are another matter.


            Carrier advances several reasons for its refusal to grant Claimant a hearing. First it says that the grievance is without merit and does not involve the interpretation o rules or working conditions. Although it is by no means clear that the complaint Claimant makes does is that Rule 7-A-1 gives him a right to a hearing when he "considers himself unjustly treated, otherwise than covered by these rules." The merit, or lack of merit, of Claimant's case is irrelevant. The Ride gave him the right to be heard. He filed a request for a hearing as required by the Rule. Carrier denied his request. The merit of his case was to be determined after the hearing. Carrier put the cart before the horse when it pre-fudged his case without granting the hearing which is clean;; specified in Rule 7-A-1.


            Nor does it aid Carrier's case to assert that it could deny, in summary fashion, Claimant's requ not involve the iaterpretatian or application of the Agreement. The issue before this Hoard, whether to Claimant upon his timely request, is clearly a claim of Agreement violation which is properly before the Hoard. Rule 7-A-1 by its express terms covers the question of hearing for "An employee who considers himself unjustly treated, otherwise than covered by these rules." Here is a clear statement that an employee who hen a claim that he was unjustly treated is entitled to a hearing even though his claim does not allege a specific violation of the Agreement. Carrier cannot rely on an alleged defect in the merit or character of his request to deny him the hearing. What Carrier's response may be to the alleged unjust treatment, after it follows the agreed upon procedure is a matter we do not deal with here.


                  FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and ell the evidence, finds end holds:


                  That the parties waived oral hearing;


            That the Carrier end 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 war the dispute involved herein; and


. :.,..% .:.::~t
                  Award Number 19553 Page 3

                  Docket Number M3-19475


        That the Agreement was violated, as discussed is the Opinion.


                      A W A R D


1. That part of the claim alleging that Carrier violated the Agreement by demanding that Claiman ClaimnaVs right to raise that question in s hearing conducted as required by Rule 7-A-1.

 2. Carrier violated the Agreement when it failed to grant Claimant a hearing under Rule 7-A-1 and that pert of the claim which so states is sustained.

                          NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTNERP HOARD

                          By Order of Third Division

ATTEST: ,W` ,~

        Executive Secretary


Dated et Chicago, Illinois, this 10th day of ,Tanuary 1973.

 ~ S ~.ea7