Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 29223
 THIRD DIVISION Docket No. MS-29213
 92-3-90-3-132
 The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Gil Vernon when award was rendered.

 (Victor R. Polewsky 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 submission covering an unadjusted dispute between me and the Bay Colony Railroad Corporation involving the ques remanded by award 27637, and now being resubmitted pursuant to such award.

 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.

Third Division Award 27637 set forth in considerable detail the factual background of this case. There is no need to repeat it here. It is sufficient to say in general terms that the case involves a claim that the Carrier violated the Claimant's right, as a former employee of the Rock Island Railroad, of first hire for various employment opportunities on other Carriers. This statutory right Employee Assistance Act (45 U.S.C. 907). It states in pertinent part as follows:
Form 1 Award No. 29223
 Page 2 Docket No. MS-29213
 92-3-90-3-132
 carrier providing temporary service over lines of the
 Rock Island Railroad, as a result of a reduction of
 service by such railroad or such temporary service
 carrier shall, unless found to be less qualified than
 other applicants, have first right of hire by any
 other rail carrier that is subject to regulation by
 the Commission for any vacancy that is not covered by
 (1) an affirmative action plan designed to eliminate
 discrimination, that is required by Federal or State
 statute, regulations, or Executive order, or by the
 order of a Federal or State court or agency, or (2)
 a permissible voluntary affirmative action plan. For
 purposes of this section, a rail carrier shall not be
 considered to be hiring new employees when it recalls
 any of its own furloughed employees.
 (b) The rights afforded to Rock Island Railroad em
 ployees by this section shall be coequal to the
 rights afforded to Chicago, Milwaukee, Saint Paul and
 Pacific Railroad Company employees by section 8 of
 the Milwaukee Railroad Restructuring Act (45 U.S.C.
 907)." (Emphasis added.)

 The Board in Third Division Award 27637 found that a conference as required by the Railway Labor Act was not held and found based on the unique facts that it was appropriate to remand the case to the Parties for such a conference. The purpose of the conference was for a possible resolution and failing that resolution to allow the parties to properly develop a complete record containing all relevant evidence before submission of the case to the Board.

 After remand the Parties exchanged various correspondence and a conference was held May 30, 1989 the Petitioner resubmitted this claim for adjudication.

 The Board has reviewed the record and has found facts present therein, developed since the reman Section 105(a) of the Rock Island Transition and Employee Assistance Act, it is true, as a general matter, that an employee of the former Rock Island or another Carrier providing temporary service who was separated has preferential hiring rights on other rail carriers. However, there is one exception. An employee separated "for cause" is excluded from the rights of first hire. The record reveals that the Claimant was separated from employment by a Carrier which provided temporary service over the Rock Island for cause. The evidence of this comcc in the form of three Awards of Public Law Board No. 3024 which upheld the temporary Carrier's dismissal of the Claimant from service for a variety of serious offenses.
 Form 1 Award No. 29223
 Page 3 Docket No. MS-29213
 92-3-90-3-132
 In view that the Claimant was separated from employment for cause he
 had no right of first hire in the first instance. Thus, the Carrier's subse-

 quent failure to comply with certain procedural requirements of the Act administrator (the Railr





                          By Order of Third Division


Attest:
      Nancy J. -.Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 7th day of May 1992.