(Nicholas J. Wills
 ( and
 (Arthur A. Veaditti
 PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
 (Consolidated Rail Corporation










OPINION OF BOARD: Petitioners A. Venditti and N. Wills were hired by (terrier
 on November 21, 1976, and each obtained his Maintainer
 status on March 7s 1977 and July 21, 1977 respectively.

 On December 14, 1976, Carrier and Organization entered into an Agreement establishing an Education and Training Program fo employee hired after April 1, 1976. Said Agreement became effective January 3, 1977, but subsequent thereto the parties agreed to extend the program to include employee hired prior to t 1976 cut-off date. Additionally, on June 21, 1978, a further agreement was reached between the parties which provided, among other things, for seniority modification for "a trainee who is promoted to a higher position out of seniority order..."

 Believing that their seniority rights had been violated as a result of the enactment and application of the above cited Education and-Training Program, Petitioners, on August 1, 1979, filed a written appeal with S. D. DutroW, Manger-Labor Relations, which was denied in a letter dated October 4, 1979, and signed by Mr. DutroW. Prior to receipt of Mr. Dutrov's response, however,
                    Docket Number MS-23199


Petitioner Wills, in a letter dated August 24, 1979, contacted the First Division of the National Railroad Adjustment Board requesting assistance in this matter. Said letter was referred to the Third Division for reply and in response thereto the Executive Secretary of the Third Division advised Petitioner Wills as fo
        "(1) The rules or practices in effect on the railroad involving governing the handling of disputes between the employees and the employer must first be complied with to conform with the Railway labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934.


        (2) After the above requirement has been fulfilled, disputes may only be filed with the appropriate Division of the National Railroad Adjustm in Circular No. 1 issued October 10, 1934 copy enclosed for your information. Also enclosed is a copy of instructions for filing and sample of notice of intent."


Thereafter, is a letter dated September 3, 1979, Petitioners Wills and Venditti notified the Third Division of their intention to file an ex parte submission is this matter. Said Submission was filed by Petitioners at a hearing which was held on May 6, 1980, at which time the file was closed and the dispute was placed in line for handling by the Third Division.

 Petitioners' position in this dispute is that the Education and Training Agreement which was entered into by the parties was discriminatory and, therefore, invalid and unlawful is that said Agreement modified the existing seniority system thereby enabling lesser senior employes to be placed ahead of Petitioners in their seniority ranking. According to Petitioners, as a result of the newly created seniority roster, Petitioner Venditti was improperly laid off from Feb 29, 1980 to April 7, 1980 and Petitioner Wills was laid off from the same beginning date until April 15, 1980. In addition, Petitioners maintain that since their respective recalls from layoff each has unsuccessfully bid on Maintainer positions which would have otherwise been available to them prior to the institution of the new seniority roster which was posted by (carrier on June 30, 1979. Furthermore, Petitioners contend that they (Petitioners) were not apprised by the Organization of their right to participate in the disputed Training Program and that such neglect further attests to organization's improper functioning in this incident.

 Continuing on, Petitioners also argue that Carrier's procedural objections to the consideration of this claim should be dismissed because: (1) Petitioners did attempt to process their grievance through,-the negotiated grievance procedure to the best of their ability but "were given short shrift by both the Representative and the Carrier"; and (?) despite Carrier's con-
                    Award Number 23369 Page 3

                    Docket Number MS-23199


tention to the contrary, Carrier was well apprised of the specifics of Petitioners' claim including the specific remedy which was being requested.

 Carrier's basic position in this matter is _hat insofar as Petitioners' Notice "...has not been progressed to the Board as required by the Railway Labor Act and the applicable collectively bargained agreement," the National Railroad Adjustment Board Third Division has no jurisdiction in this matter. In this regard (terrier specifically contends that the dispute which has been submitted to the Board "...has never been properly handled on the property nor have Claimants or anyone acting in their behalf progressed any claim up to ate. Carrier's final appeals officer, as required by the applicable Agreement provisions and the specific requirements of Section 3, First (i) of the Railway Labor Act" (First Division Awards 20741, 6798, 13991, 15235, 16928, 1746+, 17698, 17836t 18254, 19352, 20216, 20741 and 20792-20796; Second Division Awards 1404, 6172, 6520 and 6555; Third Division Awards 15075, 18364, 19564 and 20574; and Fourth Division Awards 3320 sad 7217).

 In addition to the foregoing, Carrier also maintains that Petitioner's Claim is further defective, in and of itself, because said claim: (1) is of a vague and unspecific nature; (2) contains issues which are beyond the jurisdiction of the Board; (3) does not contain a request for any specific remedy sought by Petitioners; and (4) Petitioners have named the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen as as adversary party to this dispute and under Section 3, First (i) of the Railway labor Act "only disputes which have arisen between an 'employee' and a 'carrier' are justiciable," thus the "Hoard is not empowered. to decide a dispute between an employee and his union."

 As its last major area of argumentation, Carrier argues that the disputed adjustments in "seniority dates which appeared on the Signalman Roster posted June 30, 1979, were made in accordance with ...the provisions of Article 1V, Paragraph B of the Training Program Agreement as agreed to by the Carrier and the Brotherhood of Railroad Signa7.men." According to Carrier the negotiation of said Agreement bargaining responsibility and authority and that insofar as "...seniority rights exist solely under the terms of the governing Agreement...the Board may not modify or rewrite the terms of Agreements, as the Petitioners' request would necessitate in this matter" (Second Division Awards 691.8 sad 70`fl, Third Division Awards 16545 and 18576).

 The Hoard has carefully read and studied the complete record is this lengthy and complex matter and is convinced that, for reasons articulated by Carrier is its Submission., this Claim is not properly before the Board.

 Regarding the rationale of the above posited conclusion, suffice it to say that the record clearly share that the Claim which Petitioners are attempting to assert before this Board has not been handled on the property up to and including the Chief Operating Officer of the Carrier designated to
                    Award Number 23369 Page 4

                    Docket Number MS-23199


handle disputes as required by Section 3, First (i) of the Railway Labor Acts Circular No. 1 of the National Railroad Adjustment Boards and the rules of the parties' applicable collective bargaining agreement. Normally such a determination$ by itself, would be sufficient to dispose of the matter forthwith; however because of Board is further compelled to comment that despite Petitioners' obvious sincerity regarding their assertions the record clearly shays that: (1) the proper procedure wen utilized by the parties in negotiating said Agreement; (2) the specific details of said Agreement were acceptable to the parties who were responsible for negotiating and administering such an agreement; and (3) said Agreement was approved by Carrier's authorized representative and by Organiz No. 16. Given these three (3) conclusions the Hoard is satisfied that said Agreement is a valid agreements and in view of the fact that the Board is without authority to change, amend or modify such agreements.. and also in view of the fact that "seniority rights exist solely under the terms of the governing Agreement," Petitioners' claim is found to be without merit and will., therefore be denied.

 FILINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Boards after giving the
 parties to this dispute due notice of hearing thereon, and
 upon the whole record and all the evidences finds sad holds:

 That the Carrier and the Fnployes involved in this dispute are respectively bier and Employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Acts as approved June 21, 1934;

 That this Division of the Adjustment Board Has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; sad

        That the Agreement was not violated. ~,E C F1

                                                  _· '`a


                        A W A R D ~ SEP 1 7 1-081

                                                    ~t

                                        c


        claim denies. ~~ ~`~

                                            9np;-;cE-_


                              NATIONAL ILROAD AWUS24MT BOARD

                              By Orde of Third Division


ATTEST: 14 /0 PA /".
        Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago., Illinois, this 28th say of August 1981.