PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (Consolidated Rail Corporation

 SPAW40T CP CLAM: "Matthew Wits, 249 Bond Street, Nlirabeth. Union County,

1. Petitioner Matthew Sent vas an employee of Respondent, who vas laid off on December 14, 19T9.

 2. On July 21, 1980, Petitioner vas notified by Respondent that, Under the terms of an agreement between Respondent and the union, positions vere available and that he vas required to apply for these positions or give a satisfactory reason for not applying. In the event he did neither, he vas notified that he vonld be considered out of service wad would forfeit his seniority.

 3. On July 25, 1980, Petitioner notified Respondent that he was not available for employmmtt at that time bemuse of an injury sustained in an antomobilwaecident oa July 10, 1981.%

 4. On August 4, 1980, Respondent notified Petitioner that in order far his to retain his rights as a Trackman with Conrail, he would have to forward a medical report to Respondent. On September 3, 1980, Petitioner forwarded a medical report to Respondent.

 5. On December 16, 1980, Petitioner notified Respondent that he vas able to return to work. He vas told that there vase no positions open at that time. On December 22, 1980, Respondent vas notified again that petition= vas able to return to work.

 6. in March, 1981, Petitioner gave Respondent a note frog his doctor releasing him for work.

 T. Subsequent to this date, Respondent hired. employees who had no or less seniority than Petitioner in violation of the Union agreement.

 SORB, Petitioner demands Judgment against Respondent for the following:

 (a) Reinstatement in his employment with Respondent with the se=e rights and benefits as if he were m·mployed in March, 1981.





                Docket Nssaber MS-246e6


              OPIN't07S O' BOARD: - The record is clmr that the claim Petitioner is attempting to assert before the Board was not handled in the usual manner on the property of the Carrier in accordance with the, ,applicable provisions of the collecti 3, First (i) of the Pailcay Labor Act and Circular 1o. 1 of the Rational Railroad Adjustment Board. The claim is, therefore, barred iron consideration by the Board and trill be dismissed.


FIiH)IiM: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board., upon the whole record
        and all the evidence, finds and holds:


        That the parties raived arnl hearing;


That the Carrier and the Employes involved la this dispute are respectively Carrier dad Employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as approved Jam 21, 1934;

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

        That the claim be dismissed.


                      A W A R D


        Claim dismissed.

                            r 1fATIOM RA=OAD ADJUST= HOARD By Order of Third Division


ATTEST: Acting Executive Secretary
        National Railroad Adjustmmt Board


By 0~
        Rosemarie Breech - Administrative Assisteat


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 13th day of May 19$3·

 ~CE\ V E D

 e~
 Cht~9o p~t~