`-' NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
Award Number 23449
THIRD DIVISION Docket Number Ns-23491
Herbert Fishgold, Referee
(David L. Peters
PARTIES TO DISPOTE.
Missouri Pacific Railroad Company
I
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "1.) The Carrier violated Rule
30
of the current Clerk's
Agreement when they failed to compensate me at the
appropriate rate of pay as required by the Rules Agreement.
2.)
Carrier shall be required to compensate me for five hours at the
rate of my position at the pro rata rate of pay, amount
$45.82,
which is the
difference in the time actually allowed,
$27.48.
Three hours at pro rata vas
allowed where eight hours pro rats is due account of my being required to attend
an investigation on January 2,
1980
by the Carrier as a 'Witness for the Chrrier.'·
OPINION OF BOARD: Before going to the merits of this dispute we must dispose
of respondent Carrier's jurisdictional contention that the
Board must summarily dismiss Petitioner's claim because the dispute was not
properly progressed on the property pursuant to Section
3,
First (i) of the
Railway Labor Act in that the dispute was not discussed in conference on the
property. It is well established by a long succession of awards that juris
dictional defects may occur if the parties failed to hold a conference on a
claim or grievance on the property, See Awards
1T166, 17478, 18854, 18880,
19709, 19885
and
21440
to name but a few.
On occasion though, we have held that a conference is not required if
it would be a futile act, Awards
2786, 3269
and 10030; that the conference might
be waived,
7403
and
13663;
and that an opportunity for a conference must be
given, Award
10769.
Applying these principles to the instant case, we find that no
conference was held on the property; thus, the claim stands to be dismissed
unless a compelling exception is present. Petitioner argues that this is a
longstanding dispute and references three conferences held two and three years
prior to the date of claim herein as evidence that the basic dispute was in
fact discussed in conference, thus arguing that the conference requirement has
been met. We do not think that holding a conference on a similar claim earlier
meets the conference requirement of the Act. For obvious reasons such an
earlier conference di&,novand cannot contribute to an effort to resolve the
instant dispute on the property - an obligation place.. u;:on the parties under
the Act.
Petitioner also argues that he attempted to have a conference but was
"unable to even get by their secretary." Petitioner has offered no proof to
support this allegation. He has not submitted any evidence whatsoever, not even
a letter requesting a conference that was ignored or denied. We are therefore
unable to find on this record that he was frustrated in an attempt to have a
conference sufficiently to cause a waiver of the conference requirement.
Award Number 2344Docket Number D15-.'
97+91
Fate 2
The claim will be dismissed on account of not being handled in
accordance with Section
3,
First (i) of the Railway labor Act.
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;
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
Claim dismissed.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division
Attest:
azwl'
04004W.000
Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this
8th
day of December
1981.
F~
C~\
c,
\\ .~1`'o_
~.` ~o Cii'Co-