The members of this Board representing the Carrier and the Employees having been unable to agree upon the establishment and jurisdiction of the Board, Paul D. Hanlon was then duly appointed a .neutral raeraber of the Board

      ' by the National Mediation Board for the purpose of determining said procedural matters under the provisions of Public Law 89-456.


                          STATE ENT OF THE ISSUi:S


            The issues as raised by the Carrier in its submission are as follows:


i,
                    "1,, Does a Public Law S?::cia~ Board ox Adjustment, created un6Cr Public Law a9-1156, have juris-.

. :diction of disputes involving time 1iraits es
 ' tablished by the August 11, 1948 Rules Agree
 ' _ ment and, if so;
 ' "2. Did the Organization comply with the provisions
                    of Section 2 First and Second under General

                    Duties of the Railway Labor Act, as amended,

                    in the handling of ail claims listed in their

                    letter dated August 8, 1968, roqucstin-, the

                    establish:aent of a public Law Special Board o-.f

' Adjustment and, if.so; '

                    "3. Did the Organization's request dated August 8, 1968 for a Public Law Board comply with the requirements of Rule 26 (c) of the current

' . Schedule Agreement." ..

                                              i


                                              j


                                              o


                                              i

        · sTATE.2NT or FACTS


      On August 8, 1968 the Organization directed a letter to the Carrier, the body of which reads as follows:


"Pursuant to Suction 3, Second of the Railway Labor
 · Act as amended by Public Law Board 89-456, written request
 is hereby made by the Brotherhood of Locomotive Fireman
 and Engineman for the establishment of a Special Adjustment
 Board, PL Board on the Newburgh and.Souch Shore Railway
 ' . Company.
 "The BLF&E proposes the enclosed agreement to be
 entered into for the establishment of the PL Board.
 The disputes to be resolved by the ?L Board are
 listed on A.ttac hment ,, to the agrecracat and are
 cases otherwise referable to the First Division, \:U
 B
 - (and/or) (cases that have been pending before the First .
 Division, 1iZAB for score than twelve months). .

              "Pursuant to paragraph (D) of the agrcoment the BLF^&E has designated E. F^. Brahany to be the employee mc-riibar

' of the boaru. Tine carrier is .~Guaottd t0 do-cig: ._'
              its rletlbar of the board, and to advise of the ti-,e

              and place for t:.e board to t:aet to join^· in an agreement

      ' establishing the board, all within thirty days as re-

              quired by the Act and the rulesof the National Modiation

              Board."

      As indicated in the body of the letter quoted above, there was attached thereto a ,proposed form of agreement and also an ::ttachment A listing twenty' claims which were identified by claim number and a brief statement of

      .claim in each instance. As of the date of the letter, August 8, 1968, three of the claims listed were pending before the First Division and had been pending therein for more than twelve months. The other seventeen claims had been previously presented on the property and denied by the highest designated officer of the Carrier and the time limit for further


·' handling of all .of these claims under the provisions of Rule 26 (c) of the

      Agreenant had been praviously extended to i,ugust 26, 1968.

      On August 13, 1968, the Carrier directed a letter to the: organization responding to the Organization's letter of August 3, 1968 and proposed a aiceting on Septer,:ber 3, 1968 to discuss the subject matter.

      On August 30, 7963 the Carrier directed mother letter to the Organization stating that the claims listed on Attachment A ware now outlawed under the time limit on claims under Rule 26 (c). The carrier agreed in the letter, however, to meet as previously agreed upon on September 3, 1963.'


      At the meeting of September 3, 1963, the Carrier adhered to its position .

      that the claims were tune-barred and the parties were. unable to enter into

      any agreement for a Public Law Board.

        On September 9, 1968, the Carrier directed aletter to the Organization referring to the conference held on September 3, 1968 and in that letter referred to the fact that the three claims listed as pending before the


i First Division were. not outlawed under the ti-ma limit on claims rule.
        Subsequently, this Board was.fornally established and the procedural neutral appointed through the auspices of the national mediation Board.


        OPINION AND FINDI2%GS issue No. I


. In the first issue raised by the Carrier, it is contended that this
        Public Law Board has no jurisdiction over the claims in question due to the

        fact that Carrier has raised a question of time limits which disputes


                                            ,

        it is contended pie exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Disputes


    . Committee created by a National Agreat:ent of Tuae~29, 1949. In the opinion

            . _ pea a5s~


of the neutral, this contention is without merit. Public Law 29-45,6 supersodas the National .lgrcement.of June 29, 1949 and Must be construed to confor jurisdiction upon a Public Law Board to decide all procedural issues essential to the establisluient of the Board, including disputes as to time limits on the claims presented. Issue ho.2
 In its second issue, the Carrier contends that certain of the claiMS listed should not be heard by this Public Law,Board on the ground's that the Organization has not previously "exerted every reasonable effort" to settle the disputes and has failed to confer or arrange to confer with the Carrier concerning the alleged rules violations. This, the Carrier contends, constitutes a failure on the part of the Organization to live up to the general duties set forth in Section 2 of the Railway, Labor Act An exploration of the facts behind this. issue indicates that all of the claims involved have been considered in conference on the property between a representative of the Organization. and a representative of the Carrier, but certain of these claims have not been handled in conference with the highest designated o fficiar of the Carrier and due to time limitations, those claims were denied by said officer without confarnce. While there does appear to be a regrettable breakdown in the grievance process on this proparty, there is no provision in the Railway Labor Act requiring a conference
 with the highest designated officer of the Carrier as a prerequisite to appeal to the First Division of the yi,AB or to a Public Law Special Adjustment Board and the complaint raised by th= Carrier in its Issue No. 2 does

 not constitute grounds for preventing the consideration of these claims by

 i this.Public Law Board.

                                        I

                                            ~`g asp


Issue No. 3 '.
 In its Issue No. 3 Carrier contends that all of the clai:as listed, other than those pending before the First Division, arc time-barred under Rule 26 on the grounds that proceedings were not instituted on those class before a tribunal having jurisdiction prior to the expiration of the time limit as extended to August 26, 1968. It is the position of the Organizetion that its letter of August 8, 1968, requesting the establish.-ent of a Special Adjustment Board pursuant to Public Law 89-456 and attaching thereto a .list of the claims to be presented, constituted the comnencerent of proceedings before a tribunal having jurisdiction. It is the position of the Carrier that proceedings were not and could not be instituted before a Public Law Board prior to establishme-t of said Board by agreement with the Corrier. Thus, it is contended the time limit expired on August 26, 1968 prior to the time when this Public Law Board was established.
 To anyone with the slightest familiarity with Public Law 89-456 and its legislative history, it must be immediately obvious that the position of the Carrier on this issue is directly at odds with the basic purpose of the Act. The intent of the Act was to expedite the handling of claims such as thos presented here. To achieve this end it granted to either the Carricr or the representative of the Employees the option of avoiding the intolerable delays encountered in the ARAB by exercise of a unilateral right to refer such claims to a special adjustment board. The detailed mechanics set forth for dragging a reluctant or unwilling party to a hearing before a Public Law Board make it crystal clear that neither party is intended to have any opportunity to frustrate the prompt establishment of such a Board
 P L- 13 ~L5(
and the expedited hearing of claims before it. There is no evidence in the present case of any undue delay on the part of the Carrier, but to accept the theory that the time limit on claims can be allowed to run out during the interval between request for a Public Law Board and the formal establishment thereof would invite strategic delaying tactiqw and would place in the hands of all carriers a roll of red tape with an invitation that it be wound around the machinery of Public Law 89-456 in complete mockery of the intent of the drafters.
 In short, the only logical and reasonable way to interpret the Act is to hold that a written request by either party for-the establishment of a Public Law Board, setting forth therein a dispute or disputes to be resolved by the Board, constitutes the institution of proceedings before a tribunal having jurisdiction thereof for purposes of stopping the running of any time limits on said claims or disputes.

 AW'AID

 Public Law Board \o. 251 shall be established and shall be governed by the "Agreement" attached herto. The Board shall have jurisdiction over all of the claims listed on "Attachment A" to the Agreement.

      Dated at Boston, Massachusetts this 6th day of June, 1969.


S/ Paul) D. Hanlori
 Procedural Neutral :ember