Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 27668
 THIRD DIVISION Docket No. MS-27524
 89-3-86-3-840
 The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Stanley E. Kravit when award was rendered.

 (Thomas L. Scott PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

STATEMENT OF CLAIM:

 "V. L. Jenkins (with no Group B seniority) received Group B pay plus the 298 award from January 1 to March 3, 1986 while I (who have Group B seniority) was unvoluntarily by management."

 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 and employees 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.

In January, 1986, Claimant asked the General Chairman to file a claim on his behalf for six days pay because a junior employee worked while he was furloughed. Eventually, other claims were appealed for dates beginning January 6, 1986, and continuing until the Claimant was allowed to work in place of the junior employee.

 In April, 1986, the Engineering Superintendent determined that a portion of the claim was valid and paid Claimant 10 days. In September, however, it was discovered t days and the Claimant was paid for all time from January 2 through February 28, 1986. Finally, in November it was agreed that the Claimant would be paid an additional five days to completely clear up his claim. The record verifies the Organization's agreement with the resolution of the claims.

 Nevertheless, on December 26, 1986, Claimant submitted an ex parte appeal directly to the Board, despite the fact that the claim was never appealed to the Carrier's highest designated officer on the property and was never handled in conference.
Form 1 Award No. 27668
 Page 2 Docket No. MS-27574
 89-3-86-3-840

 with Section 3, First (i) of the Railway Labor Act, before we can consider a claim, the particular dispute "...shall be handled in the usual manner up to and including the chief operating officer of the carrier designated to handle such disputes ...." Moreover, Section 2, Second of the Act requires that all "...disputes between a carrier and its ...employes shall be considered... in conference between representatives designated and authorized so to confer ...by the carrier ...and...the employees ...." Circular No. 1 of this Board reiterates these jurisdictional requirements by stating "No petition shall be considered ...unless the subject matter has been handled in accordance with the provisions of the Railway Labor Act ...." It is undisputed that appropriate appeals to the Carrier's chief operating officer designated to handle disputes or required conference on the property were not held prior to the submission of the instant matter to this Board. It is well established that we therefore lack jurisdiction to consider the Cla pointedly precluded from reviewing and deciding Employee claims that were not fully handled on the Employer's property..."). See also Third Division Awards

 18951, 19709, 19751, 25514, 25676, 25709.

 Furthermore, as noted hereinbefore, the record shows that the issues before the Board in the present case were settled by agreement on the property between the designated representative of the collective bargaining unit representing the craft i Organization and the appropriate appeals officer is binding on all parties and leaves nothing for the Board to decide. (Third Division Awards 22458, 11563, 7061; First Division Award 23083). The Claim will be dismissed.




                        By Order of Third Division


Attest:
          cy J. r - Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 17th day of January 1989.