(Vaughn E. Smith
 PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
 (Missouri Pacific Railroad Company

 STATEMENT OF CLAIM: I have been with the Missouri Pacific Railroad for approxi
 mately 26 years. I, as most employees did, started out as
 Class C seniority and worked up to Class A. Other employees chose not to do so
 rather than to work out in the yards in all kinds of inclement weather - rain,
 snow, heat, etc. They preferred the better working conditions under a roof.

 Now everyone has been arbitrarily consolidated into Class A with no consideration given to those of us who accepted the working conditions that went along with Class A. This results in many gaining seniority over those of us who worked up to Class A.

 OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant entered Carrier's service, and established a senior
 ity date, on October 9, 1946. He was employed as a freight
 house laborer and was carried on the Class C seniority roster. Claimant was
 later promoted to a clerical position and established a seniority date of Feb
 ruary 8, 1947 on the Class A-B seniority roster. Effective March 1, 1973,
 following a negotiation, Carrier and the Organization entered into an agreement
 which effected the consolidation of Groups A, B and C seniority rosters. Follow
 ing this change Claimant, although retaining his oldest seniority date of Octo
 ber 9, 1946, was passed on the consolidated roster and instead of maintaining
 the 79th position was moved to 100 on this new list. He considers the consoli
 dation to be discriminatory, and by inference requests its rescission.

 The record herein indicates that the claim was not processed on the property in accordance with Rule 43 of the Agreement. No grievance was filed on the property and the entire matter was initiated by the submission to this Board. Rule 43 provides for the submission of all claims to the officer of the Carrier authorized to receive them and a step by step procedure thereafter; this process was not followed by Claimant. The Railway Labor Act, as amended, provides in Section 3, First (i) that as a condition precedent for Board consideration disputes must to and including the chief operating officer of the Carrier designated to handle such disputes." For this reason we have no alternative but to dismiss this claim. In passing, it must be noted that the claim could not have been considered on its merits even does not allege any rule violation but rather that a new rule is inequitable and discriminatory. It is well settled that this Board has no authority to change rules; that perogative belongs to Carrier and the Organization through negotiation.


        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

        That the claim was not progressed in accordance with the Rules.


                      A W'A R D


        Claim dismissed.


                        NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD 40 dq&4tl~. By Order of Third Division


ATTEST:
        Executive 'Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 14th day of December 1973.