"Claim on behalf of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen on the Wheeling & Lake Erie Railway Co. (WLE):

Claim on behalf of J. C. Miller for payment of 272 hours at the straight time rate, as well as any additional wages lost subsequent to December 12, 1995, account Carrier violated the current Signalmen's Agreement, particularly Rule 18, when it instructed the Claimant on October 18,1995, to not return to work, even though the Claimant had not been displaced and had not been provided with a notice of the abolishment of his position. General Chairman's File No. 951207A. BRS File Case No. 10326W&LE(M)."

By letter dated December 12, 1995, the Organization filed a claim asserting violation of Rule 18. The Organization maintained that the Claimant was instructed on October 18, 1995 by Roadmaster Brown not to return to work on October 19, 1995 as he was furloughed. As the Claimant was not displaced by a senior employee and received no notification that his position was abolished, the Organization argued that Rule 18, Sections A and D were violated. Rule 18 states in pertinent part:

"A. Except as otherwise provided herein, when a regular assigned position is to be abolished, the employee occupying the position will be given not less than five (5) working days' written notice prior to the effective date of the abolition of position. Copy of such notice of abolition of position will be furnished to the General Chairman and all employees in active service on the seniority district involved.

D. When force is reduced, positions abolished or an employee is

displaced by a senior employee the affected employee shall have the

right to displace any junior employee, except as provided in

paragraph E and F. He must exercise such displacement rights

within five (5) working days of date of receipt of notice or he will

assume furlough status."

The Organization's claim on the property and before the Board is a violation of Rule 18 as the Claimant neither received written notice that his position was abolished, nor was he displaced by a senior employee as required.

There was no response to the Organization's claim on the property. It was conferenced on October 31,1996. The only other on-property record is the letter from the Organization dated March 13,1997 documenting the conference and stating that the Carrier "did not dispute the facts of the claim."

The Board makes clear that while it fully read the Carrier's Submission, those arguments were never presented on the property. That includes the Carrier's argument that the parties agreed to waive procedure and rule on the merits. It is axiomatic that when either party fails to raise an argument while the dispute is on the property, it may not have such new argument later considered before the Board. There is no documented record on the property of the Carrier ever responding to the Organization's claim or reaching joint agreement to waive procedural issues.