(Richard Peamon PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (Southern Pacific Transportation Company ( (Pacific Lines)

 STATEMENT OF CLAIM: That I was dismissed from an All Day lunch car
 attendant ,job on the Southern Pacific. I was fired
 because I supposedly was to have violated company's rules, rules that
 were never issued to me by the Company of Union or anyone else. The
 other waiter involved, J.E. MATTHEWS violated the same rules, but the
 company did not dismiss or discipline him in any form. Why? Because a
 young lady Miss Martzina did not make a written complaint about him like
 she did me. Matthew himself ordered a bottle of wine from me. Never at
 any time did I sell the young lady intoxicants at any time. The company,
 with its rules seems to be trying to frame me for the young lady having
 the wine. The Southern Pacific Company contradicts its own rules be
 cause if Matthews, a crew member with more seniority than myself violated
 the company's rules by purchasing himself a bottle of wine from me and
 the company is aware of the same, but yet he was not disciplined. Two
 wrongs in any court do not make a right. However, my concern and dis
 pute is not with Matthews as to whether or not he should be punished,
 that would not solve or help my problem, but however, he holds the key
 to show the impartiality of the company, towards its workers. I will
 admit to you as I did to the Southern Pacific Railroad that I did how
 ever hug the young lady around the shoulders once or twice but this was
 all in a playful manner when we first met and never did she object at
 any time to me and this was all I put my hand on purposely. I also
 admit that I did ask her for a kiss, but this was all in fun when we
 were getting along well. As for my claim, I say once again that never
 was I given any rules or regulations governing the specific job that I
 had; orally or written. One railroad official stated concerning my case
 that I should have had "common sense" in the matter. This is true in a
 manner of speaking, but is common sense a prerequisite for governing the
 passengers and railroad property or is it the company's rules and regula
 tions. This is my claim, but the decision is yours.

 OPINION OF BOARD: Review of the record in this docket clearly shown that
 the claim Petitioner is attempting to assert before
 this Board was not handled on the property of the Carrier in accordance
 with the provisions of the applicable collective bargaining agreement
 and as required by Section 3, First (i) of the Railway Labor Act and
 Circular No. 1 of the National Railroad Adjustment Board. Therefore,
 the claim is barred from consideration by the Division and will be
 dismissed.


        FINDMGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Hoard, upon the whole record and all 'he 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 Hoard has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.

        That the claim is barred.


                    A W A R D


        Claim dismissed.


                          NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT HOARD

                          By Order of Third Division


ATTEST: 49

          Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 17th day of January 1975.