(John L. Bennett PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

STATEMENT OF CLAIM:

 "I was fired from Conrail, January 16, 1979, for insubordination; refusing to work in the rain. Jerry Woods, Assistant Production Engineer, told me to get on the track. He said, 'I11 give you five seconds to get off the machine and get on the track.' I put my hand out, it was raining, about five seconds later, he told me to get off the tracks. So I got off. Mr. Woods never told me I could be pulled out of service.

 Several times I have gotten my time cut; when I did not work during rainfall.

 I had six days to prepare for my trial. Mr. Wood and Mr. Crague's testimony was inaccurate. They said that I told then (sic) no, that I was not going back to work. I simply let them know that I did not think it was safe to work in the rain.

 During the initial hearing, I was told that before any disciplinary action would be taken, I would have to sign the recorded transcripts and send them in. I did recieve (sic) a copy of the transcript. However, in that transcript it stated that I was f would be the procedure. Thus, I did not immediately sign and send the transcript back.

 For approximately theree (sic) months after the initial hearing, I received no further information or request for a signed transcript.

 Approximatally (sic) on March 8, 1979 I received a letter from E. P. Farabaugh Field Clerk of Pittsburgh, Pa. I was to start work in East St. Louis, Ill. I had ten days to report. Upon arrival 0. J. Dean told Mr. Cohagan, Supervisor of the rail gang to tell me to get off the track. I was fired. Returning home I called my union representative, J. E. Palermo.

 Palermo sent me an appeal form. I sent the completed form to Mr. R. H. Smith Chief Engineer. I recieved (sic) a letter from Mr. 0. J. Dean stating, I had plenty of time to read and sign the transcripts., 15 days had passed and the decision would stand. However, if my signature was required and the decision was made before I signed them, the whole process was violated. I also appealed to R. H. Smith and recieved (sic) a letter back from 0. J. Dean.
 Award Number 26248
 Docket Number MS-25981

 Page 2

 In the meantime Mr. Palermo passed away. I then called Pittsburgh several times to talk to F. P. Nuspaum. He told me not to call anymore. He nor the unoun (sic) would help me.

 I could continue to list inconsistencies. has been made.

 However, I believe that my point

 I was not given an employee handbook or job dedcription (sic) by Conrail or the union.

 I had to depend entirely on union representation that I feel did not adequately inform me of my rights or of the hearing process and subsequent appeal process.

 I would be grateful and fully expect that this board will take all factors into account and at least grant me a hearing in which I would have a fair voice and recieve (sic) the information needed to adequately defend myself and return to full employment and the self satisfaction of earning a living for myself and my family."

 OPINION OF BOARD: The Claimant, J. L. Bennett, was a Trackman on Gang 312,
 Kankakee Branch at the time of his removal on January 16, 1979, for insubordination. The undisputed facts of this record reveal the Claimant did not appeal his dismissal until approximately two and one-half months had transpired. Rule 6-a-1 of the Controlling Agreement specifies such appeals must be lodged within fifteen (15) days. Secondly, the record also establishes the appeal was not directed to the Superintendent of Personnel as provided by the applicable Rule. We find these requirements are explicit and uniformly upheld by the several Divisions of the National Railroad Adjustment Board. Before this Board can exercise jurisdiction over a dispute, it is essential and mandatory to establish that the requirements of the Railway Labor Act have been met. In pertinent part, Section 3 requires that disputes
 ... shall be handled in the usual manner up to and including the chief operating officer of the carrier designated to handle such disputes." Accordingly, we find this Clai
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 Claim is barred.
                        Docket Number MS-25981

                        A W A R D


        Claim dismissed.


                            National Railroad Adjustment Board

                            By Order of Third Division


Attest:
        Nancy J er - Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 27th day of February 1987.