_DiATIOuAL RAILROAD AD.7USDLx':i1' BOARD

Award Number p3$50

IZHZi'.ir DIVISION Docket Number h:3-23900

John B. LaRocco, Referee

(Walter Flowers PARTIES TO DISPLJTS: (National Railroad Passenger Corporation

STATE^.Bill OF CLAM: "Whether the undersigned employee is entitled to the benefits as provided by Appendix C-2 To The National Railroad Passenger Corporation Agreement with its employees et.al, dated July 5, 1973 as a result of the actions of the said Employer.".

OPINION OF BOARD; On at least three occasions is 1980, claimant applied for
benefits he asserted were due him under Article I of
Appendix C-2 of the July 5, 1973 Agreement between the Carrier and its em
ployes. The Carrier denied each of claimant's applications and claimant
properly appealled his claim on the property. Claimant now brims his claim
to this Board contending he was a displaced employe within the meaning of
Article 1(b). The Carrier specifically denies that claimant is entitled to
any G2 benefits because he did not suffer any loss of either compensation
or other employment conditions as the result of the discontinuance of inter
city rail passenger service. In addition, the bier argues that Article
IX of Appendix C-2 expressly provides that any dispute over G2 benefit en
titlements must be submitted to a Public Law Board and, thus, this Board lacks
,jurisdiction to resolve the claim on its merits.

Article IX(a) of Appendix C-2 states:

"(a) in the event any dispute or crontroversy arises between the parties hereto~with resvect to the inter- pretation or aovlicatioa of a provision of this Ap- pendix, except Articles III and X, which cannot be settled within thirty (30) days after the dispute arises, such dispute may be referred by either part to the dis ute to a Public Law Board for consideration and determination. (Emphasis added.

The parties, through negotiations, have expressly agreed that a Public Law Board should be the exclusive forum for adjudicating disputes arising under Appendix C-2 (except for disputes arising under Articles III and X). We must accept and respect the parties' negotiated dispute resolution procedure. Wind Divizioa Award No. 22093 (Sickles). dough Article L: lases the permissive term "may" when it refers to a Public Law Board, the use of such a torn does not give whe parties a chance to select alternative fora^as for resolving Appendix C-2 disputes covered by Article h.C since no alternatives are expressly stated. Third Di-risioa award No. 21706 (Lieberman).

Aw-ar3 Number 23850 pare 2

Docket :I»ber :5-239C0

Claimant's complaint is clearly based on Article I of Appendix C-2. Since Article IX therein expressly provides a forum for resolving controversies arising out of Article I of Appendix C-2, this Board lacks jurisdiction to consider this claim.

FI:Mr.9GS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, after giving the parties
to this dispute due notice of hearing thereon, and upon the xhole
record and all the evidence, finds and holds:

That the Carrier and the Employes involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and &:Lployes within the meaning of the Railway Labor act, as approved June 21, 1934;

That this Division of the Adjustment Board does not have jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.

That the claim is barred.

A W A R D

Claim dismissed* ·

NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTKMT BOARD

By Order of Third Division

ATT:~aT: Acting Fxecutive Secretary

National Railroad Adjustment Board

BY ~e!~ ~~s~-~

o marie Branch - Adminis`,.rs.tive.Assistant

Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 28th day of April 1982.

,~CEIY V~

. % y ~ ,,

__~1

e~ ~.,.

.~\hcO ,.~i~,..

\ o Q~iic~ - ~ .,

W