NATIOPAL RAILROAD ADJUSTND:NT BOARD

Award Number 22645

THIRD DIVISION Docket Number :,e-22693

John J. Mangan, Referee

Richard Shadxick PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

(Port Authority Trams-Hudson Corporation

STATEMENT OF CLAIM: 'Whether P.A.T.H. violated the I.B.T.-P.A.T.H.
Agreement, by denying me regular employment statUB."

OPINION OF HOARD: Claimant, while working as a Motor-Switcbman in
Carrier's service sustained a disabling injury on November 17, 1971. Because of the injury he was unable to continue in service as a Motor-Switchman and, an accemmodation was entered into in July, 1973, whereby claimant was provided employment as an Extra Assignment Clerk. He continued in such employment until some unsuspecified date in 1978 when his employment relationship with Carrier was terminated.

However, prior to this termination, claimant on February 10, 1978 initiated a "claim" in which he stated:

"I am clnts~ regular employment status, due to the fact that I have worked continuously for a period of over 15 months and since June of 1977;. due to the death of an wee, I did in fact hold doves a regular job."

Cs=ier rejected this request in March, 1978, and the dispute as set forth in the Stats, aat _f Claim supra ensued.

Under date of November 12, 1978, the United States District Court, Southern District of New York entered an ORDER OF' involving cl=imes in which the Court ordered - among other things:

ORDERED, that plaintiff, Richard A. Shadrick, shall be deemed to have resigned from employment with Part Authority Trans-Hudson Corporation as of August 10, 1978 when said employment was terminated, and to have relinquished all employment rights and privileges of whatsoever kind with said Port Authority Traps-Hudson Corporation as of aforesaid date, and, it is further "ORDERED, that

Award Number 22645 Page 2

Docket Number M3-22693

"plaintiff, Richard A. Shadyrick, shall be deemed to have forever released and discharged the defendant from all actions, causes of action, claims and demands for personal injuries sustained as a result of an accident on or about November 17, 1971 at the Henderson Street Yard, Jersey City, New Jersey as well as for any personal injuries plaintiff, Richard A. Shadxick, may have subsequently sustained from aforesaid .date up to and including the date of plaintiff's termination of employment."

From a review of this record and after considering the presentations of all pities, we are left with only one conclusion; that is, that this claim must be dismissed.

The claim itself is vague, indefinite and imprecise. "Handling in the usual manner". as that term is used in the Railway Labor Act, requires proof of all essential facts while a claim is being progressed on the property. This record contains only contentions and assertions - neither of which qualm as proof.

In addition, we are faced here with a request to resolve an

alleged dispute which is moot. As a result of the ORDER OF SEITLEMM
of the United States District Court in this case, there is no nag
remaining for our Hoard to decide. This Hoard has consistently followed
the Federal Cast practice of refusing to make near determination on an
issue which has became moot. For example, in 011 workers Unions v.
Missouri, 363. U.&. 363, 367-368 (1960) we find:

"Because that injunction has long since 'expired by its own terms,' we cannot escape the conclusion that there remain for this Court no 'actual matters in controversy essential to the decision of the particular case before it.' United States v. Alaska S.S.Co., 253 U.S. 113, 11 . Whatever the practice in the courts of Missouri, the duty of this court 'is to decide actual controversies by a iudament which can be carried into effect, and not to give opinions upon moot questions or abstract propositions, or to declare principles of law which cannot affect the matter in issue in the case before it.'. Mills v. Green, 159

U.S. 651, 653. See Bus Employees v. Wisconsin -_

Award Number 22645 page 3

Docket Humber w-22693

"Board, 34o U.s. 416. To express an opinion upon the merits of the appellant's contentions would be to ignore this basic limitation upon the duty and function of the Court, and to disregard principles of judicial Administration long established and repeatedly followed." (Empb is added)

See also Award Nos. 20832, 22132 and 2217? of this Division.

Therefore, this claim will be dismissed.

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 has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and

That the claim be dismissed.

A W A R D

CWa dismissed.

HATICKAL RAILROAD ADM9MM BOARD

ATTEST: W/e_a_ By Order of Third Division

ESoecntive Secretary

Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 30th day of November 1979.