(Albert C. Foose et al PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

                          (Cuyahoga Valley Railway Company


              STATEMENT OF CLAIM: This is to serve notice, as required by the rules of the

              National Railroad Adjustment Board, of our intention to file an ex parte submission on April 30, 1973 covering an unadjusted dispute between us and the Cuyahoga Valley Railway Co. involving the Question:

il


            Cuyahoga Valley Railway Co. Grievance or Time Claim Number 1315 dated January 4, 1973 and signed by Albert G. Foose, Clerk: further described as George Miller who works 10:00 P.M. to _6:00 A.M. reported off work on January 2, 1973 for one day, at which time you worked Hank Tromski at regular pay. Whereby Greg Slepko was the senior available qualified employe entitled to work under the equalization of overtime under Article XVII, pars 5 (a) sec. (3).


            We are asking Cuyahoga Valley Railway Co. to pay Greg Slepko in accordance to our current agreement for the hours worked by Hank Tromski. (Which would be time and one half) We are also asking Cuyahoga Valley Railway Co. to review all Grie XVII, Sec. 5 (a) that have been denied previously by the company using the same denial basis as recorded by the company's agents in Grievance or Time Claim Number 1315. Furthermore, we are asking the Cuyahoga Valley Railway Co. to comply in the future with Article XVII, Sec. 5 (a) in its entirety. We, Kenneth K. Simon, Greg Slepko, Donald E. Miner, Donald F. Mondrach, and Albert G. Foose constitute the majority of clerks currently employed by Cuyahoga Valley Railway Co., Cleveland, Ohio, and have appointed and authorized Albert G. Foose to represent us and to expedite a written "Notice of Intent" to the National Railroad Adjustment Board.


              OPINION OF BOARD: On March 30, 1973, a Notice of Intent to submit this claim

              ex parte was filed by individual employees. They demon

              strate that a grievance was submitted to, and denied by, Carrier on January 4,

              1973. A January 15, 1973 appeal was allegedly ignored; which prompted the

              employees to appeal to this Board.


              However, certain documents exchanged on the property by the Carrier and Organization suggest a different handling of the dispute.


              It appears that on January 10, 1973, the Organization noted an appeal to the January 4, 1973 denial. In February, the Carrier and Organization discussed the claim, but we

              March 22, 1973).On March 29, 1973 (the day before the Notice of Intent was

                    Award Number 20135 Page 2

                    Docket Number MS-20320


submitted), the Organization's representative appealed the claim to the Director of Industrial Relations' "step of the procedure" and requested a conference. On May 16, 1973, the parties conferred and disposed of the claim by agreement (confirmed in writing on June 4, 1973).

 In their Rebuttal Submission, the employees raise numerous "testimonial" assertions dealing with matter," as well as other allegations of "fact." It is well established that this Board is barred from consideration of issues raised here for the first time and that charges and assertions not raised on the property may not be considered by this Board. See Award 20132.

 The grievance procedure of the Agreement is, to some extent, abbreviated, but a review of the en the agreement have a "usual manner" of handling disputes to the Chief Operating Officer of the Carri
The employees recognize that they request us to ignore that procedure. They argue that their act automatically conferred jurisdiction upon us, and consequently, nullified the operation of two sections of the printed agreement. We find no authority to suggest that in nullify the terms of an agreement between a Carrier and organization.

 We do not question that under appropriate circumstances an individual may invoke the jurisdictio seriously question that individual employees may, by unilateral action of filing a Notice of Intent, preclude an Organization from prosecuting grievances (in the usual manner under its agreement. While the organization is engaged in that pursuit, the individual employees must defer any appellate rights to this Board which they may have. The Railway Labor Act and the regulations of this Board require full compliance with procedures governing the processing of claims on the property before submission here.

 Because the record shows that the Notice of Intent was filed prior to final disposition of the claim by the authorized representatives of the parties on the property, we find that the claim was prematurely submitted and must be dismissed. See Award 18110 (Dorsey). See also Award 19751 (Lieberman).
                    Award Number 20135 Page 3

                    Docket Number MS-20320


FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, after giving the
 parties to this dispute due notice of hearing thereon, and upon
 the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:

 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 lacks jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.

                    A W A R D


        Claim dismissed.


                          NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                          By Order of Third Division


ATTEST: ~ ,
        Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 31st day of January 1974.