PARTIES ) Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad Company
 TO THE ) and
 DISPUTE ) Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen

 ISSUE IN Claim of the General Committee of the Brother
 DISPUTE: hood of Railroad Signalmen on the Chicago,
 Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad company
 that:
 (a) Carrier violated the August 21, 1954
 Agreement and the Mediation Agreement
 dated February 7, 1965, when it failed to
 give sixteen hours notice of job abolish
 ment and it also violated the same agree
 ments as the work normally performed by
 these employees could have been performed.
 (b) Carrier violated the August 21, 1954
 Agreement when Mr. D. L. Wylie failed within
 si;:ty days of September 15, 1967, and pre
 viously, to either approve or disapprove of
 individual time claims which had been sub
 mitted to him by crewmen from Lines East.
 (c) Carrier be required now to pay Messrs.
 W. L. Stewart, C. J. Siewert, R. C. Larsen,
 L. M. Nadeau, I3. L. Wolfe, R. H. Schuth,
 J. J. Jameson, D. 14. Schurhammer, B. R.
 Lundberg, J. J. Pillard, J. R. Burress,
 K. W. Fales, J. L. Shaefer, T. B. Shaw,
 J. P. Fahey, J. L. Kreye, R. M. Roth, R. L.
 Riester, F. X. Marien, and P. L. Tocke eight
 (8) hours at their, straight-time rates account
 of the above violations.

 OPINION This Committee has heard and decided issues
 OF BOARD: involving the proper handling if claims on the
 property. In those cases, however, the procedural
 questions were intertwined with a substantive issue arising under
 the February 7, 1965, Agreement.


In the case before us the Employes have simultaneously submitted the procedural issue to the Third Division, lest it find itself in the wrong forum and thereafter foreclosed from initiating a proceeding in the right one. The claims do a11ec_a a violation of the February 7, 1965, Agreement. But the substantative question has become bottomed exclusively on the procedural. According to the Employes' submission, carrier failed to respond to the claims within the 60 days required by Article V of the August 21, 1954, National Agreement and therefore is required to allow them. It is undisputed that Carrier did not respond within 60 days of the alleged filing. Carrier's defense is that Claimants failed to file with the proper officer authorized to receive claims in the first instance, it never received them, and therefore they must be disallowed.

 If the Employes prevail on the procedural issue, carrier must allow the claims pursuant to Article V 1(a) of the 1954 Agreement, regardless of their merits. If carrier prevails bc<_uuse the claims were not filed properly within 60 days of the occurrence, then similarly the claims are barred. In either event application of Article I, Section 4, of the 1965 Agreement is not required in order to resolve the dispute.

 Only this Committee can interpret and apply the February ,7 Agreement. But this Committee has no jurisdiction over other agreements. The Third Division is the proper forum for a claim which can be disposed of solely by reference to the August 21, 1954 Agreement and it is therefore referred to that body without further action.

                        A W A R D


              Claim referred to the Third Division for disposition under the August 21, 1954, Agreement.


                          oieaman / G ,r Neutral Member


Washington, D. C. January a,b , 1970

                          -2-