( Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
 (Chicago & Illinois Midland Railway Company STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:

 1. a-Carrier violated the Agreement on March 6 and 13, 1972, when it failed to compensate Mr. W. J. Hughes for eight (8) hours pro rata rate of his assignment as Laborer at Havana, Illinois.

 b-Carrier shall be required to compensate Mr. Hughes for eight hours at the pro rata rate of his regular position, 3:30 P.M. to 12 Midnight, less the amount received, for March 6 and 13, 1972.

 2. a-Carrier violated the Agreement on March 6 and 13, 1972, when it failed to compensate Mr. W.J. Hughes for eight (8) hours at the time and one-half rate of the Deck Hand's position 7:00 P.M. to 3:30 A.M.

 b-Carrier shall be required to compensate Mr. Hughes for eight (8) hours at the time and one-half rate of the Deck Hand's position, less the amount received, for March 6 and 13, 1972.

 3. a-Carrier violated the Agreement on the 13th day of March 1972, when it suspended Mr. Hughes from working his position as Laborer at Havana for the sole purpose of depriving other available employees of overtime.

 b-Carrier shall be required to compensate the senior available qualified employee off duty between the hours of 7:00 P. M. and 3:30 A.M. on March 13, 1972 for eight (8) hours at time and one-half rate of the Deck Hand's position.

 OPINION OF BOARD: In their earlier stage these claims were submitted to two
 Divisions of the National Railroad Adjustment Board, the Fourth and the Third Divisions, and, in consequence, a problem of dual jurisdiction resulted. Howeve challenge in Fourth Division Docket No, 2932, the Fourth Division dismissed the claims without prejudice. See Fourth Division Award No. 2867 and 2963 (Docket No. 2932). Accordingly, the claims are now properly and exclusively vested in the Third Division for adjudication.


The alleged facts giving rise to the dispute occurred on March 6 and 13, 1972, when Carrier required Laborer Hughes to suspend work at Havana, Illinois during his regularly assigned hours to fill a vacation relief assignment of the Deck Hand p violations by Carrier: (1) Violation of Time Limits; (2) violation of the rule prohibiting suspensic.n of work during regular hours to absorb overtime (Rule 47); (3) violation of the seniority provisions (Article III) and the overtime and calls provisions (Article VI) of the Agreement, effective February 1, 1938, as amended April 1, 1953; and (4) violation of the National Vacation Agreement. Carrier asserts that its actions were proper under all applicable agreements and that the claim should be dismissed or denied. However, despite the Carrier's general denial, the record contains an admission by Carrier that it under-paid Claimant Hughes by $15.13 for services performed on March 6 and 13, 1972.

 Because of the stare of the record, which we shall elaborate upon later, we shall deal with only two facets of the dispute. First, we would expect the Carrier to pay Claimant Hughes the above-mentioned sum of $15.13. Second, we shall rule against Petitioner's contention concerning Carrier's violation of time limits. The letter on which the time limit contention is ·' based, the May 4, 1972 letter of Superintendent Tippey, did make an offer of partial payment of the Hughes claim; however, this offer followed a statement concerning lack of rules support for the claims "as presented". Thus, the letter in its entirety, constituted a denial of the claims within the applicable time limits.

 With respect to the remainder of the issues involved, or which may be involved in this dispute, we regrettably have concluded that these issues will have to be determined on another day and with a different record. The record here is incomplete in some areas and in others, unreconciled conflicts are presented. The Submissions of both parties fail to present adequately the significance of the handling on the property, and fail to give a coherent statement of the theories Petitioner, but there is no explanation of how so many violations could result from the relatively simple set of alleged facts. Similarly, there is no positive presentat constitute violations. In short, the record presents a picture of such confusion that it simp the larger body of incomplete and unreconciled statements. Consequently, except for the time limits and underpayment matters mentioned above, we shall dismiss the claim without prejudice.
                  Award Number 20046 Page 3

                  Docket Number CL-20177


        FINDIBOS:'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

        There was no violation of the Time Limits by Carrier.


                        A W A B D


Except as stated in the Opinion in respect to the $15.13 underpayment to Claimant Hughes, the Claim is dismissed without prejudice.

                            NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BQARD

                            By Order of Third Division


        ATTEST: ~~' Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 30th day of November 1973.