(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks, ( Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employee ( (formerly Transportation-Communication Division, BRAC) PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (The Denver and Rio Grande Western Railroad Company

 STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of the Transportation-Com
 munication Division, BRAC, on the Denver & Rio Grande
 Western Railroad Company, TC-5857, that:

 1. Carrier violated the Telegraphers' Agreement including Award of Arbitration Board No. 298 when it failed and refused to compensate Extra Telegrapher A. A. Griego fo headquarters when taking his annual vacation.

 2. Carrier shall now compensate Extra Telegrapher A. A. Griego three (3) hours and thirty (30) minutes pro rata travel time and 130 miles at .09C per mile.

 OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant, an extra Telegrapher, was sent from Denver, Colo
 rado, his assigned headquarters, to Minturn, Colorado, to
 fill a relief vacancy extending from December 26, 1970 through March 26, 1971.
 His vacation occurred during this period. In the absence of instructions on
 what he was to do at the beginning of his vacation, Claimant returned to Den
 ver on February 12, 1971 to begin his vacation. At the end of vacation on
 February 23, 1971, he returned to hlinturn to resume working the relief vacancy.
 He then filed claim for three (3) hours and thirty (30) minutes travel time and
 130 miles at 9C a mile, the distance from Minturn to Denver.

 Petitioner's position is that Carrier should have instructed claimant at the start of his vacation, either to return to his headquarters to start his vacation or to start his vacation at Minturn. Petitioner asserts that, if Carrier had directed a travel time and mileage claimed herein; and that, if Carrier had directed a vacation-start from Mint lodging allowance of up to $7 a day for each day he was away from headquarters. In sum, Petitioner asserts that Carrier necessarily has one or the other of these obligations and that it must speak affirmatively so as to indicate which obligation it assume o; and gave rise to claimant's right to determine for himself that his vacation should start at his home headquarters.


Petitioner's submission states that the dispute is predicated "upon various provisions of an Agreement" between the parties and upon the Agreement of Arbitration Award 298, dated September 30, 1967, as amended and supplemented and the interpretations thereof. Despite the reference to "various provisions" of the Agreement, the record shows that the only issues joined by the parties concern the interpretation of Arbitration Award 298. However, Board members have raised the additional issue that this Board does not have jurisdiction to render an interpretation of Arbitration Award 4298. Since it is well established that jurisdiction c Awards 8896 (McMahon), 12223 (Dolnick), and 19530 (Brent), we shall consider this question.

 The Arbitration Award of Arbitration Board 298 was made under The Railway Labor Act and thus is governed by the arbitration provisions of that Act. One of the applicable provisions, found in Section 8(m) of the Act, requires that the agreement arising as to the meaning, or the application of the provisions, of an award made by a board of arbitration shall be referred back for a ruling to the same board, or, by agreement, to a subcommittee of such board; and that such ruling when acknowledged in the same manner, and filed in the same district court clerk's office, as the original award, shall be a part of and shall have the same force and effect as such original award;...," (r5mphaeis added)

 In conformity with the foregoing statutory provision, paragraph 14 of the agreement leading to Award 298 reads as follows:

          "14.Any difference arising as to the meaning, or the ap-

plication of the provisions of such award shall be referred for
 a ruling to the Board, or to a subcommittee of the Board agreed
 to by the parties hereto; and such rulings, when certified under
 the hands of at least a majority of the members of such Board,
 or if a subcommittee is agreed upon, at least a majority of the
 members of the subcommittee, and when filed in the Clerk's office
 of the United States District Court for the Northern District of
 Illinois, Eastern Division, shall be a part of and shall have the
 same force and effect as such original award," (Emphasis added).
 The argument against this Board having jurisdiction is that both the
 above statutory provision and Paragraph 14 of the agreement of the parties
 leading to Award 298 gave Arbitration Board 298 exclusive jurisdiction over dis
 putes concerning any differences as to the meaning or application of the Award
 of Arbitration Board 298. The quoted language clearly supports the argument of
 exclusivity of the jurisdiction of Arbitration Board 298 and several recent Awards
 have so held. Awards 17845 (Dolnick), 18813 (Devine), and 19278 (Franden).

 We believe these Awards are controlling in the circumstances of thi. dispute and, therefore, we conclude that this Board does not have jurisdiction c the dispute.
                  Award Number 19704 Page 3

                  Docket Number TE-19734


        In view of the foregoing, we shall dismiss the claim.


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


        That the parties waived oral hearing;


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

        That the claim is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.


                      A W A R D


        Claim dismissed.


                          NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                          By Order of Third Division


ATTEST: 400,00,46 ~~C,~.A.~aJ
 Executive Secretary

 Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 13th day of April 1973.

 fv