(Edwin C, Ring PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

                      (George P. Baker, Richard C, Bond, Jervis Langdon, Jr.,

                      ( and Willard Wirtz, Trustees of the Property of

                      ( Penn Central Transportation Company, Debtor


        STATEMENT OP CLAIM: Please be notified that I intend to file an Ex Parts Sub-

        mission on March 29, 1972; hence. I will this date notify Penn Central Railroad, Defendant, in writing, by sending them a copy of this notice.


        It is my client's position that he was deprived of his rights earned in his yearn of employment with the Penn Central Railroad which included the right to the protection and compensation benefits then in effect for the employees of the Pennsylvan that employment in 1968, An attempt to secure redress through arbitration was unsuccessful and our client suffered inequities. My client has been and !a damaged by the lack of definitive determination of his rights; and he is entitled to be relieved of that inequity. He is entitled to some authpritative decision as to whether his job of sign writer has been abolished or whether his employment has been wrongfully terminated. By the terms of the Interstate Commerce Commission, Act 49 U.S.C.A. Central Railroad, the terms of the Washington Job Protection Agreement of May, 1936, the terms of the Agreement for the Protection of Employees in event of a merger of Pennsylvania and New York Central.Ratlroada, (1964). My client is entitled to vindication of his rights.


          A copy of Mr. Ring's Submission will be sent to the Defendant at the same time they are mailed to the Board of Adjustment. Thank you for your attention.


          OPINION OF BOARD: The Agreement between the Carrier and the Brotherhood of

          Maintoaance of Way Employees, dated August 29, 1957, contains a procedure for the handling of disput represented by that Organization. The pertinent Rules read as follows:


                "1, The steps in the said usual manner of handling disputes growing out of grievances or out of the interpretation or application of agreements concerning rules conditions shall be, successively, with:


                      (a) Superintendent of Personnel

                      (now Superintendent-Labor Relations and Personnel)


v;==,~ __ ___ _ _.__ _ _ ..
                          Award Number 19751 Page 2

                          Docket Number MS-19779


                    "(b) Manager of Labor Relations

                  * * * * * * (now Director-Labor Relations),


              2. Each Superintendent of Personnel shall meet monthly with the District Chairman, and the Manager of Labor Relations shall meeting monthly with the General Chairman, for the purpose of disposing, if possible, of matters coming within the purview of the foregoing which have been listed, at least five (5) days is advance, for discussion at such meeting by either party. These meetings shall be held on dates scheduled in advance.


              3. A submission, in the following form, shall be prepared with reasonable promptness by the Superintendent of Personnel and District Chairman, covering a controversial matter not disposed of with the Superintendent of Personnel:


                        (a) subject (which shall specifically set forth the nature of the controversy, date or dates, name of employs or employee and the rule or rules which may be involved.)


                      (b) Joint Statement of Agreed-Upon Facts.


                      (c) Position of Employee.


                      (d) Position of Company.


              4. In addition to 'disputes growing out of grievances, or out of the interpretation or application of agreements concerning rates of pay, rules or working conditions,' other questions may be presented and handled is the manner prescribed above at the monthly meetings.


              5. (a) All controversies grown out of grievances or out of the interpretation or application of agreements which have been appealed to the Manager of Labor Relations and upon which agreement is not reached shall be promptly joint submission, to The Pennsylvania Railroad-PennaylvaniaReading Seashore Lines-Maintenance of Way


              (b) All claims or grievances involved in a decision by the Manager of Labor Relations shall be barred unless within nice (9) months from the date of said Officer's decision the claim or grievance is~iled with the Maintenance of Way System Board of Adjustment, 1


              ,t * ,t ,t x w *·.


v.
                        Award Number 19751 Page 3

                        Docket Number MS-19779


      An examination of the record of this case reveals that it is deficient with respect to the rules in two respects; (1) There was a lapse of 19 months, from June 26, 1968 to February 20, 1970, in the perfection of Claimant's appeal; this period was well beyond the time limit for an appeal as set forth in the rules. (2) This case was not discussed at a monthly meeting of the Superintendent of Labor Relations and Personnel with the District Chairman, or finally at a regular meeting of the Director of Labor Relations with the General Chairman, as provided for in paragraph 2 of the Rules quoted above.


              Section 3, First (i) of the Railway Labor Act provides in part:


              "The disputes between an employee._ and a Carrier.., growing out of grievances or out of the interpretation or application of agreements concerning rates of pay, rules or working conditions,

              ,.shall be handled in the usual manner up to and including the chief operating officer of the Carrier designated to handle each disputes; but failing to reach an adjustment in this manner, the appropriate division of the Adjustment Board ....

                                            "


      This Board, in all Divisions, has consistently held that a petitioner must progress a dispute in the usual manner (in accordance with the applicable agreement) on the property for the Board to assume jurisdiction of the dispute. In Award 15075, for example, we said:


              "The record 1s clear that the claim the Petitioner is attempting to assert before the Board was not handled on the property of the Carrier in accardanca with the Provisions of the applicable collective bargaining agreement and as r (i) of the Railway Labor Act and Circular No, 1 of the National Adjustment Board. The Claim is, therefore, barred from consideration by the Division and will be dis


        In this case, since it is clear that the matter was not handled on the property in accordance with the Agreement or as contemplated by the Railway Labor Act, the claim must be dismissed for lack of authority to determine it upon the merits.


              FINDINGS; The Third Division of .he Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holder:


              That the parties waived oral hearing;


      That the Carrier and the Etnloyea involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and Employes witain t:he meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934;


i
                    Award Number 19751 Page 4

                    Docket Number MS-19779


That this Division of the Adjustment Board lacks jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and

                    A W A R D


        Claim dismissed.


                          NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                          By Order of Third Division


ATTEST:
        Executive ecretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 11th day of May 1973.

      ,i


~ ~i