Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 29190
 THIRD DIVISION Docket No. TD-28766
 92-3-89-3-153
 The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Peter R. Meyers when award was rendered.

 (American Train Dispatchers Association PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (

STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
"Claims of former Train Dispatchers A. D. Rasmussen, P. G. Roberts and G. R. Baldwin for sick leave, including sick leave placed in a Sick Leave Reserve, under the agreement dated February 23, 1976, as revised on August 23, 1983 [Carrier file 8390-4-93]

 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 respectiveiy 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..

 Parties to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing thereon.

 Each of the Claimants was a regularly assigned Train Dispatcher in the Carrier's former Battle Creek, Michigan, office at the time that the office was closed and its w 1986.

 The Claimants had accumulated various amounts of unused sick leave reserve as of the end of 1985, and each of them had performed enough service as Train Dispatchers i-: 1986 to entitle them to 13 additional days of sick leave in 1987 under the various Agreements referenced in the "Statement of the Claim."

 All of the Claimants chose not to follow their work to the Pontiac office in October of :986 and thereby changed to clerical service with the Carrier when the farmer Battle Creek office was closed. The Claimants became clerks, thereby forfeiting their dispatcher seniority.
 Form 1 Award No. 29190
 Page 2 Docket No. TD-28766
 92-3-89-3-153

 The dispute involves their Claims for sick leave days in 1987, that they earned in 1986, and unused sick leave reserve, as set forth in the various dispatcher Agreements.

 The Claims were filed by the three Claimants in mid-1987. The Claims were brought to this Board by the Dispatchers' Organization after the final Carrier denial in March of 1988.

 The Carrier initially raises the issue of jurisdiction, arguing that at no time during the handling of this dispute were the Claimants working under the controlling dispatchers' Agreement. Therefore, according to the Carrier, this Board has no jurisdiction to hear this case since the Dispatchers' Organization is not
This Board must agree. We find that this Board lacks jurisdiction to resolve this dispute on the merits. The Railway Labor Act states in part that " . . . failing to reacn an adjustment . . . disputes may be referred by petition of the parties or Adjustment Board . . .' The Board agrees with the Carrier that the Claimants are now, and were as of :he date that they filed their Claims, clerks, and not dispatchers. Consequently, under the law, only the Clerks' Organization, the Claimants, or the Carrier are appropriate parties to envoke the jurisdiction of this Board for the adjudication of this dispute. The ATDA, under the facts of this case, cannot properly advance this dispute to this tribunal to afford us the jurisdiction that we need to decide this dispute.

 This Board reached a similar finding in Third Division Award 25959 when we found that the 3oard had no jurisdiction over that dispute.






Attest:
        Nancy J.r - Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 3rd day of April 1992.

LABOR MEMBER'S DISSENT

AWARD NO, f,3_: 0. DOCKET TD-^97'6


The majority findings of this award envision strangers to .-.he Agreement, i.e. the Clerks' Organization, as a proper party to refer this dispute to the Board.

    Consequently, under the law, only the Clerks' OrQanizaticn, the Claimants, or the Carrier are appropriate parties to evoke the jurisdiction of this Board..." [emphasis added]


The Clerks nave no standing, competence or interest in enforcing and interpreting ATDA agreements, nor should they.

 If the absurd finding of the majority in this case were carried to its unreasonable conclusion, it might suggest empowerment of any Organization, even those not a party to an agreement, to blindly seek resolution of disputes at this Board, having disastrous results for the employees and the signatory organization.

 It certainly cannot be denied that the Claimants, or the Carrier, for that matter, may properly refer a dispute to this Board. But, in this case, to state that the Clerks', but not the train dispatchers, may refer this dispute which involves an agreement solely between the ATDA and the Carrier is sure tomfoolery.

      I dissent.


                                L. A. Pa melee

                                Labor Member