Steven Singfield
PARTIES TO DISPITIE
(Consolidated Rail Corporation

STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "(1) Whether the termination of claimants employment by
Conrail for alleged insubordination was tainted by racial animus?

(2) Whether the termination of the claimant by Conrail was disproportionately excessive in relation
OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant entered service on August 16, 1976 as a trackman
in the Metropolitan Region. Claimant was notified by Carrier to attend a hearing which was to be held on July 9, 1979 (which hearing was subsequently postponed until July 11, 1979) in connection with Claimant's alleged refusal to perform duties assigned to him by his Foreman on June 14, 1979. 4n September 17, 1979 Claimant was notified that he had been found guilty of insubordination and was dismissed from service.

A close analysis of all supporting materials presented to the Board as they relate to this case, including the hearing transcript, leads this Board to several conclusions. First of all, Statement of Claim, part one (1) (from which Statement of Claim, part two (2) a fortiori must be sustained or denied as a consequence) does not, is itself, ask for remedy growing out of a grievance or an interpretation or application of an Agreement, thus voiding this Board's jurisdiction in this instance under Section 3, First (i) of the Railway Labor Act. This Board's position on this issue in this case is not novel, but has been sustained by precedent in like instances (See, for example, PLB No. 909, Award No. 1). Secondly, there is a well established tradition whereby the Board, in its appellate function, deals only with those issues in any given case which were covered on property (Third Division, No. 22405 inter alia). This case contravenes this tradition by the substance of its Statement of Claim; the issue of racial animus was not raised on property as part of the proceedings as witnessed by both the transcript of the hearing and by Exhibit 2 of Claimant's submission. The issue of racial animus was being processed, fiowever, by Claimant through another, and separate forum of relief. Further, the issue of excessive discipline was not raised on property.





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 aver the dispute involved herein; and

        That the claim is barred.


                          A W A R D


        Claim dismissed.


                            NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BQARD

                            By Order of Third Division


Attest: Acting Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board

By .~.G~ yW.:_:_
        Rosemarie Bras - Administrative Assistant


Date at Chicago, Illinois, this lath day of January 1983.'

    ,, ~~C~'~

        1`y._D


t
      .. ·· d


    C \.c~9 OcS.,ce.~. ,.


`*