(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks, ( Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (Robert W. Blanchette, Richard C. Bond, and John H. ( McArthur, Trustees of the Property of ( Penn Central Transportation Company, Debtor

L. A. Sorrell claiming one day's pay for Christmas Day, December 25, 1971, W. A. Shorts claiming a day's pay for December 25, 1971 and January 1, 1972, J. J. McNabb January 1, 1972. (Docket 2808)

 OPINION OF BOARD: In order to make a lawful award on the merits of this
 dispute, the Board. must find that it has jurisdiction
 over the parties and the subject matter of this dispute (See A. B. Phillips
 v. Fidalao Island Packing Company., 230 F. 2d 638, 640 (9th Cir. 1955);
 rehearing denied 238 F. 2d 234 (9th Cir. 1956); certiorari denied 352 U.S.
 944 (1956)).
Railway Labor Act, over "disputes between an employe or group of employes and
 a Carrier or Carriers." The Act defines the term "employe" in Section
 1 Fifth, as including "every person in the service of a Carrier . . who per
 forms any work defined as that of an employe or subordinate official in the
 orders of the Interstate Commerce Commission." The Railway Labor Act
 defines the term "carrier" in Section 1,Firgt, as including "any express
 company, sleeping car company, Carrier by railroad, subject to the Inter
 state Commerce Act." Therefore, it should be clear that the Railway Labor
 Act explicitly limits and parallels its coverage, with respect to both
 carriers and employes, to the coverage of the Interstate Commerce Act.

 Sections 1 (1) (a) and 1(2) of the Interstate Commerce Act limit its application to common carriers and transportation, "only insofar as such transportation or transmission takes place within the United States." Consequently, the application activities which take place within the United States.

 The clear and unambiguous language of the Railway Labor Act limiting its scope and coverage to labor relations within the United States has been sustained both by this Board (see Third Division Award 18694; First Division
 Awards 14082, 11151, 11150, 11149, and 915), and the Federal courts(see


Air Line Dispatchers Assn. v. National Mediation Board, 189 F. 2d 685, cert. denied, 342 U.S. 849 (1951); Air Line Stewards and Stewardesses Assn. v. Northwest Airlines. Inc., 162 F. Supp. 684, 267 F. 2d 170, cert. denied, 361 U.S. 901 (1959); Air Line Stewards and Stewardesses Assn. v. Trans World Airlines, 173 F. Supp. 369, 273 F. 2d 69, cert. denied, 362 U.S. 988 (1959)).

 On the basis of the foregoing authorities, this Board finds that, with respect to operations within the Dominion of Canada, the Carrier and Employes involved in this dispute are not Carrier and Employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act. Therefore, this Board being without jurisdiction to decide this dispute on its merits, the claim must be dismissed.

        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 jursidiction over the dispute involved herein; and

 That the Carrier and the Employes involved in this dispute are not respectively Carrier and Employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934;

                    A W A R D


        Claim dismissed.


                              NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                              By Order of Third Division


          utive S~ ~~


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 18th day of February 1977.

                                v


                                i;hc 1 r- 1977


                                J J ~FR.~ P