Docket Number MS-2306$ (D. J. Jones PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
                                                    (Consolidated Rail Corporation


                                        STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "This is to serve notice, as required by the rule of
                                                                                 the National Railroad Adjustment Board, of my
                                                                                 intention to file an ex parte submission on May 21, 1979, Covering an un
                                                                                 adjusted dispute between me and ConRail Corp. involving my Thermit Welder
                                                                                 rights and ConRail not awarding me a Thermit Welder Helper job. ConRail said
                                                                                 I had lost all my rights as a welder. The one main party involved that started
                                                                                 this whole problem is Mr. Jim Burns, a former Welding Supervisor. He was the
                                                                                 one who said I was disqualified as a !hermit Welder when I didn't bump M. L.
                                                                                 Mayes as a gas welder in Middletown, Ohio. I tried to explain to him that this
                                                                                 man (M. L. Mayes) was older than me but he said he wasn't. So h1r. Burns
                                                                                 supposedly wrote a letter of disqualification that said I was disqualified as
                                                                                 a welder, but as of this day I have never seen a copy of this letter. I have
                                                                                 tried but never succeeded., etc."

                                                        OPINION OF BOARD: Our review of the entire record clearly shows that this

                                        claim which petitioner is attempting to assert before this Board was not handled on the property of the Carrier in accordance with requirements of the aaplicab Section 3, First (i) of the Railway Labor Act and Circular No. 1 of the National Railroad Adjustment Board. Therefore, this claim as described above is barred from consideration by this Division and is accordingly dismissed.

                                              FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:


                                              That hearing was held and concluded;


                                        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
                                                          Award Number 22789

                                                          Docket Nubmer MS-23068 ?age 2


                                              That the claim is barred.


                                                            A W A R D


                                              Claim dismissed.


                                                                  NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                                                                  By Order of Third Division


                                        ATTEST:
                                                /~.~

                                                Executive Secretary


                                        Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 14th day of March, 1980.