Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 26979
 THIRD DIVISION Docket No. MS-27750
 88-3-87-3-225
 (M. C. Galindo
 PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim of M. C. Galindo (If366) that:

 (a) Carrier violated the provisions of the current Clerks' Agreement at Los Angeles, California when it improperly abolished positions 6333, 6334, 6335, 9321 and 9327 on March 24, 1986 and March 25, 1986, and

 (b) Such abolishments were improper because duties were redistributed to positions outside the c
(c) Failed to provide BRAC with a list of duties not abolished and a list of position numbers to which these duties were to be distributed, and

 (c) (sic) Ms. M. C. Galindo shall now be compensated $6,944.85 plus $503.25 for each day after April 11, 1986, and

 (d) Ms. M. C. Galindo shall now be compensated interest and any other damages and awards deemed proper 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, 26976, 26985, 26987 and 26988, for the same period. This Board has consistently held that it will not allow the pyramiding, compounding, and dupl Form 1 Award No. 26979
 Page 2 Docket No. MS-27750
 88-3-87-3-225

 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:
        ancy J. r -.Executive Secretary


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