STATEMENT'OF CLAIM: "Claim of the System Committee of the

Brotherhood that:

(1) The Carrier violated the Agreement when, without a conference having been held between the Chief Engineering Officer and the General Chairman, as required by Rule 2, it assigned or otherwise permitted outside forces (American Railroad Construction Company) to perform the maintenance work of constructing track in the vicinity of Mile Post ANB 862.5, on the Manchester Subdivision of the Atlanta Division, beginning March 9, 1990, up to and including April 5, 1990, [System File ALT-9031/12(90-726) SSY].

(2) As a consequence of the aforesaid violation, Foreman K. Turner, Machine Operator C. Heard and Trackmen R. Chaney, C. Clements, A. Hale and C. Daniels shall each be. allowed pay at their respective straight time rates for an equal proportionate share of the one thousand eighty (1,080) man-hours expended by the outside forces performing the work outlined in Part (1) above."

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

It is clear from the record in this case that the instant claim was not conferenced by the Organization on the property. The jurisdictional requirement that a dispute be handled in accordance with the applicable Agreement and the customary practices of the parties is found in Section 153, First (i) of the Railway Labor Act, which reads in pertinent part as follows:

"(i) The disputes between an employee or group of employees and a carrier or carriers growing out of grievances or out of the interpretation or application of agreements concerning rates of pay, rules, or working conditions ...shall be handled in the usual manner up to and including the chief operating officer of the carrier designated to handle such disputes: ...."

In addition, Section 2, Second of the Act provides:

"Second. All disputes between a carrier or carriers and its or their employees shall be considered, and, if possible, decided, with all

expedition, in conference between.

representatives designated and

authorized so to confer,

respectively, by the carrier or

carriers and by the employees

thereof interested in the

dispute." (Emphasis supplied)

Following a long line of precedents, the Board concludes that the failure to hold a conference on the property deprives the Board of jurisdiction to hear this dispute, and the Claim must accordingly be dismissed.

AWARD