Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 26976
 THIRD DIVISION Docket No. MS-27747
 88-3-87-3-221
 (M. C. Galindo
 PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim of M. C. Galindo (#360) that:

 (a) Carrier violated the provisions of the current Clerk's Agreement at Los Angeles, Calif. when it improperlsy (sic) bulletined positions 6340, 6283, 6338, 9444, 6136, 6181, 6283, 6290, 6333, 6182, 6023 from December 2, 1985 through December 16, 1985 by inserting the term 'and related duties' or similar words under description of duties, and

 (b) Claimant M. C. Galindo shall now be compensated $1,109.21 plus $1,109.21 for each day after April 9, 1986, and

 (c) Claimant M. C. Galindo shall now be compensated interest payable at the prevailing prime rate and any other penalites and awards as may be determined by this Honorable Board."

 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.

As Third Party in Interest, the Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks was advised of the pendency of this dispute and filed a Submission with the Division.

 At the outset, we note that the Claimant has other Claims, see Third Division Award Nos. 26973, 26979, 26985, 26987 and 26988, for the same period. This Board has consistently held that it will not allow the pyramiding, compounding, and duplicating dismissal.
 Form 1 Award No. 26976
 Page 2 Docket No. MS-27747
 88-3-87-3-221

 Beyond such defect, the facts indicate that no conference was held as required by Rule 47 of the Agreement and the Railway Labor Act. For the reasons set forth in Third Division Award 26749, the Claim must be dismissed.

 Petitioner's arguments with respect to the time limits are not supported by the record. Finally, even if the merits could be reached, we can find nothing in the applicable Agreement between the Carrier and BRAC which supports the Claimant's position that such Agreement was violated.




                          By Order of Third Division


Attest:
      -7 4

        Nancy J, r - Executive Secretary


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