(Shirley H. Stone PARTIES TO DISPUTE:



STATEMENT OF CLAIM: As an employee of the Penn Central Transportation
Company I have the following subject to list with the Third Division, National Railroad Adjustment Board for adjudication:



OPINION OF BOARD: Careful examination of the entire record, which

Respondent Carrier, and by Third Party Notice Hearing the Brotherhood of,
Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station
Employes, discloses that this dispute is not one over which this Board has
jurisdiction. The record discloses that the dispute is an articulate ex
pression of Petitioner's dissatisfaction over -the-Carrier terms~and provisions_of.
an agreement dated April 19, 1974, between the Carrier and BRAC. Petitioner
sets forth four points, arguing (Employe'sPosition):








        "III. It violates Section 4 of the Union Shop Agreement in that membership is not available to me in my present non-agreement employment on the same terms and conditions as are generally applicable to other membe working on positions fully covered by the Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks Schedule Agreement.


        IV. It is a discriminatory agreement because it provides that only those employees who have been promoted to fully excepted or official positions on or after March 22, 1969 must become members or retain membership in the Clerical organization and not all employees in a promoted status whose seniority is being continued regardless of when they were promoted."


Section 3, First (i) of the Railway Labor Act confines the jurisdiction of the National Railroad Adjustment Board to disputes concerning "the interpretation or application of agreements concerning rates of pay, rules, or working conditions." The Board has no jurisdiction to consider allegations c entered into pursuant to the settlement of proper Section 6 Notices. An individual's expressed dissatisfaction with the terms and provisions of such agreements, and allegations that the agreements are illegal or discriminatory without even a hint of allegation that the agreement is not being properly applied, clearly constitutes a case over which the Board lacks jurisdiction. See Awards 12466, 13830, 19142, and 20078 of this Division and Awards 1012, 1145, 3863, 4073, 6948, and 7077 of the Second Division. Also, see 343 U.S. 768 Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen vs. Simon L. Howard, Sr., wherein the Supreme Court held: "The claims here cannot be resolved by interpretation of a bargaining agreement so as to give jurisdiction to the Adjustment Board under our holding in Slocum vs. Delaware, L&W.R. Co., 339 U.S. 239. This dispute involves the validity of the contract not its meaning." The claim will 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;
                    Award Number 21853 Page 3

                    Docket Number MS-21766


        The Board lacks jurisdiction.


                    A W A R D


        Claim dismissed.


                          NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                          By Order of Third Division


ATTEST:
        Executive Secretary


Dated at chicago, Illinois, this 18th day of January 1978.