(Robert Jacques PARTIES TO DISPUTE:


STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "1. Was my dismissal for 'insubordination' to
 Con Rail Assistant Supervisor of Track
 Production, A. Bernabei, illegal?

 2. Was my dismissal far 'insubordination' to Assistant Supervisor of Track Production , A. Bernabei, excessive and or arbitrary?

 3. Was my dismissal for 'insubordination' to Assistant Supervisor of Track Production, A. Bernabei retaliatory because I am an active Grievance Committeeman for my Lodge, Lodge 705, BMWE?

 4. Was my dismissal for 'insubordination' to Con Rail Assistant Supervisor of Track Production, A. Bernabei, part of a campaign by Con Rail to harass and intimidate my Lodge because of its union activism?

 5. Did the Con Rail hearing and investigation in my case violate the contract because it was an unfair hearing?

 6. Should I be re-instated with full back, seniority, and all other benefits?

 7. Did Con Rail violate the applicable collective bargaining agreement when it dismissed me for 'insubordination'?"

 OPINION OF BOARD: The claim herein was submitted to the Board by the
 Claimant and the Local Chairman of the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Flaployes.

 While the Statement of Claim in the present dispute is worded differently, the occurrence giving rise to the dispute was the dismissal from service of the same claimant for the same alleged offense on the same date as covered by our Award No_ 23026. The record shows that the Local Chairman, who is an attorney, attempted civil action against the Carrier, concerning Carrier's dismissal of claimant, in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Essex County. The court action was dismissed.


We do not consider it the intent of the Railway Labor Act, which has as one of its primary purposes, the prompt and orderly settlement of disputes growing out or application of agreements covering rates of pay, rules, or working conditions, that the National Railroad Adjustment Board repeatedly adjudicate the same dispute involving the same claimant and arising out of the same occurrence, simply because the claimant may choose different representation.

 As the claimant's dispute with the Carrier arising from his dismissal from service on September 21, 1978, for his actions on August 31, 1978, has been adjudicated by our Award No. 23026, the dispute herein will be dismissed.

 The Carrier also points out that questions (1) through (7), set out in the Statement of Claim were never handled or discussed. on the property as required by Section 3, First (i) of the Railway Labor Act. We do not think that the Petitioner has adequately answered the Carrier's contentions in this respect. Even though some of the questions may have been touched upon in the investigation, this does not meet the requirement of Section 3, First (i) which requires handling in the usual manner up to and, including the chief operating officer of the Carrier designated to handle such disputes. Only disputes handled designated officer of appeals, and failing-of adjustment, may be. referred to the Board. This would also constitute proper basis for dismissal of the claim.

 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
 Act at approved Carrier and Employes within the meaning of the Railway labor
 pproved June 21, 1934;

 That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and






        Claim dismissed.


                        NATIONAL RAILROAD AWUS24ENT HOARD .

                        By Order of Third Division


ATTEST:
        cxecutive Secretary


Dated at Chicago., Illinois, this 28th day of October 1980,