(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and
 Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers,
 PARTIES TO DISPUTE: Express and Station Employes
 (The Long Island Rail Road Company

 STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood

a) The Carrier violated the existing clerical agreements between the parties when they arbitrarily disqualified Claimant E. A. White from the 5-C-1 training program entered into by agreement of September 20, 1972. (See attached agreement - Exhibit "B")

 b) On Page 2 of the existing September 20, 1972 agreement it states, "The training period contemplated by this agreement will be twelve (12) months. The trainee will be required to comply with the provisions of this section until the termination of the twelve (12) months referred to herein." (Section 9 of Sept. 20, 1972 agreement) If the trainee is required to comply for a period of twelve (12) months, it would seem altogether reasonable that the Carrier must also comply.

 c) Section (8), "In the event an employe's progress is not satisfactory, he will be so advised in writing by the Director of Purchases and Materials." Section (8) does not say that such notice in writing will constitute abrogation of the agreement. Claimant's notice of disqualification on November 30, 1973, agreement of September 20, 1972.

 d) Section (6)s "Employe(s) awarded or assigned to the 5-C-1 clerical positions stipulated in Section (1) hereof, will be guaranteed five (5) days per week and will be accorded two (2) consecutive rest days per week."

 e) Claimant E. A. White is now entitled to a days pay for December 3 and December 4, 1973, and the difference in the rate of the position he now holds and that of the Inquiry Clerk's position. Claimant E. A. White worked as an Extra Clerk from December 1, 1973 until January 15, 1974. He bid a regular assigned position and was awarded same. Attached please find Claimant's letter, 5-page appeal and wage claim dated January 24, 1974. (Employe Exhibit "A")


OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant was awarded on February 14, 1973 a position of
 Clerk-Trainee pursuant to Section 5-C-1 of an Agreement between the parties entered into on September 20, 1972. Under date of November 30, 1973 Claimant received written notification of disqualification as a 5-C-1 trainee, by the Staff Assistant to Director of Purchases and Materials, Mr. R. P. Murray. According to the record, December 1 and 2, 1973 were Claimant's pass days and on December 3, 1973 he orally requested and was granted an "appeal hearing" on his disqualification. Claimant appeared for the appeal hearing on December 4, 1973 with his own private counsel but thereafter acquiesced in having the Organization's Local Chairman represent him. At the conclusion of the hearing the Staff Assistant, Mr. Murray, orally denied Claimant's demand for reinstatement in the training program. . Thereafter, Claimant filed a written claim letter dated January 24, 1974 with the Directory Purchases and Materials, by Certified Mail. Return Receipt Reaauested, with copy to the BRAC Local Chairman, as follows:

        "Certified Mail

        Return Receipt Requested


        Mr. A. J. Hoover, Director

        Purchases & Materials

        Long Island Rail Road

        Jamaica Station Bldg.

        Jamaica, N. Y. 11435


        Dear Sir:


        Attached hereto are 5 pages representing my Appeal from Notice of Disqualification, presented to me at approximately 4:30 P.M. on ITovember 30, 1973, and Claim for Loss of Wages.


        The original of pages 1 and 2 were presented to your Staff Assistant R. P. Murray on December 4, 1973 at 90-24 Sutphin Blvd. in the presence of Local Chairman, Don Waldman, BRAC, and as no reply has ever been received from Mr. Murray, these pages are now being presented to you as part of my Appeal and Claim.


        Pages 1 and 2 are essentially the same as presented to Mr. Murray on December 4, 1973 with the addition of a final paragraph making a formal claim for loss of wages.


        The last 3 pages under the heading "Appeal from Disqualification - Part II" and dated December 8, 1973 give an account of the meeting of December 4, 1973 attended by R. P. Murray, Donald Waldman, myself and a stenographer for the carrier, M. E. Cummings. Stenographer's transcript has never been received by me or my Union representative,

                    Award Number 21373 Page 3

                    Docket Number CL-20880


        "All 5 pages have been reviewed by Local Chairman Waldman, BRAC, and are now being presented to you, as head of the department, via United States Post Office C


                                Sincerely,


                                EVEFtLTT A. WHITE Is/


                                Everett A. White


        Attachment: 5-page Appeal

                & Wage Claim.


        cc: Local Chairman, Mr.

            Donald Waldman BRAC"


Carrier tells us it denied these claims both as to alleged wage loss and reinstatement as a trainee via a detailed four-page letter dated March 12, 1974 and bearing a conclusory paragraph as follows:

        "Should you consider this matter not closed, you should direct yourself to and through the appropriate B.R.A.C. official who can progress it further for you."


This letter allegedly was sent by first-class mail to Claimant with no copy to the Organization.

        At the core of this dispute is the contention by Claimant that he

never received the denial letter of March 12, 1974. Carrier produced a
 copy of the denial letter at the hearing before our Board and provided a
 copy to the 13RAC Local Chairman on May 16, 1974 in response to the latter's
 repeated demands of April 5 and May 7, 1974 that White's claims be paid under
 Rule 4-D-1 (a) time limit rule for failure of Carrier to make a written
 denial within 60 days of January 24, 1974. In response to the Local
 Chairman's 4-D-1 (a) demand of April 5, 1974 the Staff Assistant had
 alluded to a March 12, 1974 denial letter from the Director-Purchases and
 Materials but had not provided a copy to BRAC. In his letters of April 15,
 may 16 and May 31, 1974 the Staff Assistant urged the Local Chairman to
 progress the case through the appeals machinery to the highest officer handling such claim. In l 7 and 20i
 and June 5. 1974
 the Local Chairman expressly declined to do so on the stated grounds that
 Carrier's alleged violation of Rule 4-D-1 (a) prevented the Organization
 from taking "the proper procedural steps" of appeal to the Presidential level.
 Thereafter, the instant claim was progressed directly to our Board following
 the Staff Assistant's final letter of May 31, 1974, without further handling
 on the property,
                    Award Number 21373 Page 4

                    Docket Number CL-20880


On the basis of the foregoing factual record each party seeks vindication on "procedural" grounds under Rule 4-D-1, to-wit: 1) The Organization asserts that Mr. White's claim must be allowed as presented for Carrier's alleged failure to notify with reasons for disallowance within 60 days (Rule 4-D-1 (a)) and; 2) The Carrier contends that the claim must fail for violation of Rule 4-D-1 (b), Section 3, First (i) of the Railway Labor Act and Circular No. 1 of the NRAB in that it was not appealed to the highest Carrier officer before progression to this Board. Additionally and alternatively each party has presented substantial evidence and argumentation relative to the merits of White's claim that his disqualification constituted a violation of the Agreement. Finally, the Carrier tendered the alternative theory that if arguendo the denial was procedurally defective, then damages may lie only for that period from January 24, 1974 through April 15, 1974 when Petitioner was apprised of the March 12, 1974 denial letter.

 We have reviewed carefully the record of handling and mishandling of this case. It appears that neither of the parties' representatives at the property level distinguished themselves for astute grievance processing. Carrier's front-line supervisors received an individual employe's claim letter, certified mail-return receipt requested, and chose to respond via first class mail. It is one of the oldest recognized common-law contract doctrines that the sender (respondee) authorizes a channel of communications by usage and a response But where, as here, the responder chooses to use another medium of communication then the risk of nonreceipt lies with him and the responder's message is not considered communicated until actually received by the respondee.

 The foregoing doctrines present interesting questions relative
 to Carrier's possible liability herein under Rule 4-D-1 (a) for procedural
 mishandling. But we are barred from resolving even these threshold
 procedural questions, let alone the merits of the disqualification,by the
 more consequential miscue of the Organization's representative and Claimant
 in failing to appeal the claim to the highest level of handling on the
 property. The Organization states unequivocally in its ex parte submission
 that "as of this date the Organization has not appealed this case to the
 highest officer of the Carrier due to the fact that . . . the organization
 still has not received a proper written denial." This non sequitur proves
 fatal to the claim. The appeal to the highest level on the
 property is
 not only procedural under the Agreement it also is a jurisdictional pre
 requisite to our taking a claim under Section 3, First i and. Circular No. 1
 of the NRAB. Absent such prior exhaustion of remedies we are precluded by
 law from disposing of the alleged issues presented, whether procedural or
 substantive. We are left no alternative on the record before us but to
 dismiss for lack of proper jurisdiction to hear the claim on its merits.
                    Award Number 21373 page 5

                    Docket Number Ch-20880


        FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Hoard, 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 Hoard has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and

        That the Claim be dismissed on jurisdictional grounds.


                    A W A R D


        Claim dismissed.


                            NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT HOARD

                            By Order of Third Division


        ATTEST: Executive Secretary


        Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 28th day of January 1977.