PARTIES) Brotherhood of Railway, Airlinc and Steaz3haz Clerls3,
 TO ) Freight F?=:tilers, Express and Station Enplo7vs
 DISI"zT1E) and
 Roy V. Thclipson, foyer eeployae of the Cpunndion
 Natioral Rail~says
 QUESTION
 AT ISSUE: Is Roy .~:1bl3"p£oR, the ureersignad herein, entitled to tt.-3Ava
 (12) months separation pay as provided for in the hwdiaticn
 Agrecmant r:-ad the: Apee;=nt of 1i>y 1936, the soacallcd
 W'eshirgto.z A.rec~a.~t.
 OPINION
 Or BC)APD: 71:3 Claiz-ant herein czas regularly n0siL·knd as a clerk ct Fort
 Covingttcn, V`3--z York, with a seniority dwte cc:-rr-;.acing Ociob-or 6,
 1941.. Hsnce, he was a protected erwploy-a pvrscaat to Astirle I,
 Section 1, of the Fetaru.ay-y 7, 1965 I?:`:9.s~aal ~g~:z~,-,:xtt, T=here
 aft.^:r, effective r_~r.ch 29,-'°70, Ckir-::It'-a rCyit

In the event a position is abalisl-:d, L`a-. cvic~etivo Sc`?rdnle Agr^<effnnt provides certeln optious to tL3 afiC~t3<l C.:..'Sl.fij~.jv·ve9~u~Ci.S° 33eiivxity ri~GhtS to 61Splace a jnai.or e=~loyc^ `;ii:i~ii1 C~:.,VFn !I=.;y.".,, or ncccf--?t ft'·.3:lfi'i'.,-^.--,?!, Upon failure of the ClaL:.ni to elarci°a his diejz'.-:e::_a~ riS%ts to a r,·::...:Lr of available pavitiens in his seniority district, Vie C^f:.: i.^r placed him oa Ono furloug':: d list.

 In addition, t:ze Carris:.* ecnt'nds tIue Clalj~-_nt r'crfoitnd his protected srtatuc pursuant to ~%reicle iI, SHction 1, of tha F-° ttonal ~g::~_~nt, dt= to his fciluro to obtain a pnsittien available to hia in tl:0 exezclre of tins seniority rights. Further involved :,ai:tin is an essestion of a cc__?a:r~.iscoffer by the Carrier for Clai-u-;lit to _elii_:ezish his riv%L8 Qs a p=otccz~d evplo;:-33 In this regard, thsze is a disputed qu3sticl as to t:'ather thn e~;:rc_aco offag was eanditiox:~.d upcn a release of a poravusl injury chin stvstain.~d by Cl.ai=rt.

 It should further b's noted that both the C-rrier and tf:o Orga::f® zarion advised Clai=:ani: to protect his irs~a~°awts by e- C reining hip lisp 1=tcs_·-:::t rig'~ts. Instead, ha filed a el< Lra t'3roz-~g% his auob_;3y with th.o Auen ri :x:ger, p.=rs:=nt to Abticla V, of t'-:s Vaticn;l A-sr=nm, of his al~ctic:3 to tctn a seraration s11o.:an ce.

 Wo defenses c=ra intcrp3aod by the Carrisr to 0.3 instent claim -- one on procedural grounds ar.3 the second on the r3rita. Inasmt;ch as the question of jurisdiction of our E~srd h.^.s boon rised, we shall initially proceed to that question.

 The instant c1=inm was proprly submitted at the first step of the grievance procedure with the Area Iz^.ger. At no ti-e, thereafter, vas th3 claim appealed to the highest designated officer on the prop3rty, as rsquired by the Schedule :,1Lreer-gut. It is, 0-refora, our co°sidared opinion that th3 claim must be disvissed on jurisdictional grounds.
 Award No. 243
 Case No. CL-46-E

 Despite the fact that thoa instant claim requires dismissal on jurisdictional grounds ci°3 hevn, furtherz,3ra, carefully revieuad the s-rats of this dispute. On the basis of our anzlysis on the writs, it is our considered opinion that the claim is defective end it should be denied. Thus in conclusion ue could dis-Bias the clvii on tho procedural dnfact end deny it on the writs.

 A14ARD

 7.'~11.9 alesl,i3r t0 t5ao Question is in tr.o negative.

              J

              W W

Murroy M. Rsh_.,_,n

routral Ynmlar


Dated: washin3ton, D. C.
 Jcne 9, 1971

      d~


        v


.1.
    __j V