Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 26946
THIRD DIVISION Docket No. MS-26429
88-3-85-3-111
The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Gil Vernon when award was rendered.

(John Pichalski PARTIES TO DISPUTE:


STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "This is to serve notice, as required by the rules of the
National Railroad Adjustment Board, of my intention to file an ex parte dispute between me and Consolidated Rail Corporation involving the question: Is the and prepared by M. S. Fernicola on March-26-84 at 405 Division S.T. Elizabeth N.J. and the transcript who's trial was held on april-11-1984 and prepared by M.S. Fernicola on April-18-1984 a valid transcript where by one who is qualified to do so, base an a
FINDINGS:

The Third Division of the Adjustment Board upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that:

The carrier or carriers and the employe or employes involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 1934.

This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.



The record indicates that on March 16, 1984, a trial was held for Claimant at Elizabeth, New Jersey in connection with the following charges:








Form 1 Award No. 26946
Page 2 Docket No. MS-26429
88-3-85-3-111


















On April 11, 1984, another trial was held for Claimant. In this instance he was subject to the following charge:



Claimant was again found guilty of the charge, and was assessed the discipline of five (5) days suspension. Appeal was again made and handled in accordance with the Schedule Agreement and the Railway Labor Act up to and including the Senior Director Labor Relations, who denied this appeal also in a letter dated July 25, 1984. Subsequently, the Claimant on his own motion filed the instant claim before the Board.

The biggest problem with the Claimant's case before the Board is that it is difficult to determine exactly what he is seeking. As best can be determined he makes no claims that the Collective Bargaining Agreement was violated. Nor does he req instance, it is clearly stated he is not contesting the propriety of the suspensions. He only questions the validity of the transcripts.

This is significant since our jurisdiction under the Railway Labor Act is to adjust grievances concerning the application and interpretation of collective bargaining agreements. If the Claimant accepts the discipline as he stated in his Rebuttal brief the accuracy of the transcript is a moot question. Thus, because the claim apparently has no basis in the Agreement we have no jurisdiction.

Additionally, we lack jurisdiction since the precise question as put to the Board was not handled on the property and in line with long-standing precedent must be dismissed.
Form 1 Award No. 26946
Page 3 Docket No. MS-26429
88-3-85-3-111






                          By Order of Third Division


Attest: Zz~ '40e.'e
Nancy J. ,$Off? - Executive Secretary

Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 30th day of March 1988.