NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION Docket Number MS-20015
Frederick R. Blackwell, Referee
(H. G. Skidmore
PARTIES TO DISPVrE:
(George P. Baker, Richard C. Bond, Jervis Langdon, Jr.,
( and Willard Wirtz, Trustees of the Property of
( Penn Central Transportation Company, Debtor
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: This is to serve notice, as required by the rules of the
National Railroad Adjustment Board, of my intention to file
an ex parte submission 30 days from date of this notice covering an unadjusted
dispute between myself and the Penn Central Transportation Company involving
the question:
Has the Carrier:
(a) ignored the rules and regulations relative to the
pass rights and privileges of my employment;
(b) violated the Rules Agreement, effective February
1, 1968;
(c) abrogated the Employees Pre Merger Protective
Agreement of 1964 thereby breaching Section 5 (2) (f)
of the Interstate Commerce Act, and;
(d) violated the Railway Labor Act?
OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant contends that Carrier made changes in its pass
policy, effective January 1, 1972, which wrongfully de
prived him of his pass rights and privileges in respect to the former commuter
lines of the New Haven division. It is specifically alleged that Carrier vio
lated the agreement, the 1964 Merger Protective Agreement, and the Railway Labor
Act. Carrier's defense, inter alia, is that the changed policy did not sub
stantively affect claimant's travel privileges, but merely required him to
travel on a trip by trip basis rather than by means of an annual pass which he
previously held. Carrier also asserts that the 1964 Protective Agreement could
not cover this situation in any event, because it is not disputed that the
claimant, a former New York Central employee, did not acquire any New Haven
pass privileges until 1969.
The claimant's ex parte submission is highly generalized and vague,
and also fails to request any specific relief. We have nonetheless carefully
examined all of his allegations and arguments. However, in the record before
us, we have not found any agreement support for the claim and we must conclude
that the claimant has not made a prima facie case for his contentions. Accordingly, we shall dismiss
support.
Award Number 19950 Page 2
Docket Number MS-20015
Parts (c) and (d) of the claim, alleging violation of the 1964
Protection Agreement and the Railway Labor Act, will be dismissed for lack
of Board jurisdiction. While it is doubtful that claimant's situation comes
under the 1964 Protection Agreement, it suffices here to say that such Agreement provides a special
this Board has ruled in prior Awards that it will not inject itself into such
disputes. See Award No. 19954. Also, while this Board is empowered to act in
disputes coming under the Railway Labor Act, we have no power to enforce that
Act or to dispense sanctions for violations thereof.
For the reasons indicated 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 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
The claim is dismissed.
A W A R D
Claim dismissed.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division
ATTEST:
44AA
Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 28th day of September 1973.
i