(George L. Burks PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

STATEMENT OF CLAIM:

 "I, George L. Burks, here identified as Petitioner, do hereby make a Claim for loss of pay, two (2) on the job injuries, loss of hone, loss of privately owned automobile employees with seniority."

 OPINION OF BOARD: By letter dated August 1, 1984, the Organization filed
 Claim in the amount of $158.70 on behalf of Claimant
 "account him not being reimbursed for auto mileage he incurred on behalf of
 the Carrier." The basis was Claimant's contention that Foreman Amos had re
 quested that he use his personal auto to haul sane employees to and from a job
 site during the period March 19, 1984 - March 30, 1984. By letter dated Sep
 tember 27, 1984, the Regional Engineer declined the Claim. On October 25,
 1984, the General Chairman advanced the Claim and on December 3, 1984, the
 Carrier declined it, contending Claimant had not been authorized to use his
 vehicle. Thereafter conference was held on the property.

 On March 4, 1985, Claimant served his Notice of intention to file an Ex Parte submission. It stated:














                        Docket Number MS-26250


        In a Statement of Claim, the Claimant noted:


          "I, George L. Burks, here identified as Petitioner, do hereby make a Claim for loss of pay, two (2) on the job injuries, loss of home, loss of privately owned automobile, expenses incurred for moving, loss of wages due to employees with seniority.


          STATEMENT OF FACTS:


          Southern Pacific Transportation Company has deliberately acted in collusion to bring forth the a mentioned damages toward the petitioner. Each document will prove that the carrier was notified of m claim, also in excerpts from transcripts of hearings, the statements made by the officers in charge will show how they lied and manipulated others to go along with them in an effort to discharge me from employment and deliberately make me suffer financial damages, stress, and undue hardship.


          It is with sincere anticipation that I request an oral hearing before the Third Division of the National Railroad Adjustment Board."


Numerous attachments to the Ex Parte submission deal with earlier and distinct Claims made against Carrier, as well as Public Law Board Awards, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission litigation and related matters pertaining to Claimant's empl
Carrier contends the Claim as presented to the Board by Claimant is not the same Claim as that handled on the property by the organization. Thus the Claim as presented has not been handled as required under Section 3, First (i) of the Railway Labor Act. As the Rules of Procedure of the Adjustment Board provide:

          "No petition shall be considered by any division of the Board unless the subject matter has been handled in accordance with the provisions of the Railway Labor Act, approved June 21, 1934."


Carrier contends the Claim is barred and this Board lacks jurisdiction.

 In this connection Claimant maintains "For every Claim I have made, I have submitted or I can submit a written document for substantiation."

 In Agreement with the Carrier this Board finds that matters referred to in Items B through L of Claimant's Ex Parte submission were not raised on the property, or if they were at some time in the past, they were not progressed as Claims in
                        Award Number 26217 page 3

                        Docket Number MS-26250


As this Board has held on numerous occasions in the past, and recently in Award 25081:

          ". . . the Claimant never handled this matter on the property, never conferred with Carrier representatives there nor appealed their actions at any level below this Board. There are numerous awards to the effect that the Board may not consider matters brought to them without following the agreed upon prior procedures . . . ."


To the extent the Claim for "A. Travel Expense" may be understood to refer to the Claim presented on the property, we note no evidence was produced to establish Claimant was authorized to use his vehicle as contended. Claim ant has not met his burden of proof.

 FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, after giving the parties
 to this dispute due notice of hearing thereon, and upon the whole
 record and all the evidence, finds and holds:

 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 Agreement was not violated.


                        A W A R D


        Claim denied.


                              NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                              By order of Third Division


Attest:
          cy J er'- Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois this 15th day of January 1987.