(R. D, Woodrum PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

STATEMENT OF CLAIM: This is to serve notice, as required by the rules of the
 National Railroad Adjustment Board, of our intentions to file an ex parts submission on March 22, 1972, covering an unadjusted dispute between me and the Norfolk & Western Railway Co. involving the question:

 That the Carrier violated the current Clerks Agreement, as amended particularly rules #1-2-3-5-6-36-38-39-49 and 65, when on the dates of April 16·17-18·19-23-24-30, 1971 also May 1-2-3-7-8-9-10-14-15-16-21-22-23-24-2930-31, 1971 assigned position of Billing clerk, which works 7:00 A.M. till 3:00 P.M. Thursday through Monday, with Tuesday and Wednesday as assigned rest days, to fill the position of Scale Clerk, which is assigned to work 7:00 A.M. till 3:00 P.M. Friday through Tuesday, with Wednesday and Thursday as assigned rest days.

 That the Carrier violated the current Clerks Agreement, as amended particularly rules #1-2-3-5-36-38-39-49 and 65 when on the dates of June 13-1417-24-25-26-27 and 28, on the dates of August 5-6 and 7, 1971 I was removed from my regular assigned position of Billing Clerk which works 7:00 A.M. till 3:00 P.M. Thursday through Monday, with Tuesday and Wednesday as assigned rest days, to fill the position of Scale Clerk, which works 7:00 A.M. till 3:00 P.M. Friday through Tuesday with Wednesday and Thursday as assigned rest days.

 OPINION OF BOARD: A conference on the property was not held prior to submission
 of this claim to this Board and, for that reason, Carrier contends there is a jurisdictional bar to this Board's consideration of the claim. Carrier also contends the claim is barred in that no claim, framed in the language submitted to the Board was ever presented on the property; we find no merit in this contention as there is no substantial difference between the claim submitted on the property and the one submitted here.

 While claimant concedes the conference requirement applies to a claim which is handled by the Organization, he contends the conference requirement is inapplicable where, as here, the individual handles his own claim. Claimant also contends that an individual filing a claim under Rule 40 of the Agreement between the parties, effective January 1, 1965, is not required by any express provision in such Rule to submit his claim to conference on the property. And finally, claimant contends the conference requirement was disposed of by the inability of Carrier and himself to agree on a date, time, and place for a conference.


Claimant calls attention to Awards 19276 (Edgett) and 19302 (Cole), which he believes stand for the proposition that an individual claimant is not subject to the conference requirement. We have studied these Awards carefully, but find that in neither of them does the Board make any reference at all to the conference requirement and its jurisdictional implications. Consequently, we consider these Awards inapplicable to the issues herein. However, the conference requirement was extensively treated in Award 22101 (First Div., Malkin), which involved an individual claimant and this same Carrier, and which held that the conference requirement roust be met by the individual claimant before Bard jurisdiction can vest. Three other Third Division Awards involving individual claimants and this same Carrier have held that a jurisdictional bar results from a claimant's non-compliance with Section 3, First (i) of the Railway Labor Act and Circular No. 1 of the National Railroad Adjustment Board. (Franden). Circular No. 1 of the National Railroad Adjustment Board provides:

In view of the unambiguous language in Circular No. 1, as well as the Rulings in First Division Award 22101 and Third Division Awards 18330, 18394, and 18662, we think it is crystal clear that the individual claimant, and the claimant who has representation, are under the same obligations to comply with the conference requirement before submitting a claim to this Board. Furthermore, since the source of the conference requirement is found in the Railway Labor Act and in Circular No, 1, we believe claimant's contention that Rule 40 of the instant Agreement contains no express conference requirement is irrelevant.

 Claimant contends, in the alternative, that the conference requirement has been disposed of anyway, because, although he requested a conference, a conference did not occur date, time, and place for the conference. In effect claimant says there is excusable reason in his c do not agree.
Claimant's request for conference at Portsmouth, Ohio was not agreeable with Carrier, but Carrier offered a conference at Roanoke, Virginia. Claimant rejected this offer because of prior commitments, whereupon Carrier made a further offer of conferen to be out of the city over night". These facts may amount to personal inconvenience to claimant, but


On the record as a whole there is a jurisdictional bar to this Board's consideration of the claim and we shall therefore dismiss the claim.



That the Carrier and the Employes involved in this dispute ate respectively Carrier and Employee within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as approved ,Tune 21, 1934;

 That this Division of the Adjustment Board does not have jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein for the reasons indicated in the Opinion; and






                            By Order of Third Division


        ATTEST: ~~ ~'~(~r~,~ Executive Secretary


        Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 27th day of February 1973,


~%= T;x.