CLAIMS PROGRESSED IN COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE AGREEMENT (37)

Fourth Division Award No. 183 (Wolfe) 

"The claim in this case was not properly processed on the property because appeal from the reviewing officer was not made within the period prescribed by the rules.

"Claim denied."

Fourth Division Award No. 547 (No Referee)

"The powers of the National Railroad Adjustment Board are derived solely from statute. Section 3, First, (i) of the Railway Labor Act provides that disputes 'shall be handled in the usual manner up to and including the Chief Operating Officer of the Carrier designated to handle such disputes.' The record reveals that the claims in this docket have not been progressed on the property in accordance with Section 3, First, (i) of the Amended Railway Labor Act."

Fourth Division Award No. 591 (No Referee)

"The record shows claimant failed to progress his case to this Division as required by rules of the current agreement and, therefore, it must be considered closed.

"Claim denied."

Fourth Division Award No. 1019 (No Referee)

"The record shows that the claimant presented his claim and request to this Division without first progressing said claim and request in accordance with the provisions of the applicable schedule agreement and Section 3 First (i) of the Railway Labor Act."

Fourth Division Award No. 3946 (No Referee)

"It is quite clear that the claim submitted to the Board on April 21, 1982 was not filed and progressed in the usual manner on the property as required under Section 3, First (i) of the Railway Labor Act, as amended. The claim must be dismissed without consideration of the merits."

Fourth Division Award No. 3947 (No Referee)

"It is quite clear that the claim presented to the Board was not filed and progressed in the usual manner on the property as required under Section 3, First (i) of the Railway Labor Act, as amended. The claim must be dismissed without consideration of the merits."

Like or similar wording is found in the awards that followed on each and every occasion when noncompliance with the agreement and/or the law occurred.

Following the precedent, supra, we find: Fourth Division Award Nos. 1120 (no referee), 1144 (no referee), 1305 (no referee), 1512 (no referee), 1541 (no referee), 2231 (no referee), 2232 (no referee), 2305 (Coburn), 3030 (O'Brien), 3101 (O'Brien), 3279 (Lieberman), 3320 (Lieberman), 3327 (Zumas), 3511 (Lieberman), 3716 (Franden), 3758 (Carter), 3784 (Dennis).

The last two Awards in this unbroken chain were adopted March 23, 1989.

In Fourth Division Award No. 4675 (Marx) the majority held, in pertinent part, as follows:

"When the Carrier presented the Board with its question (limited simply to the Scope Rule), it in effect produced the consequence of interfering with the orderly processing of individual claims on the same subject.

"The Carrier argues that the two meetings and exchange of correspondence which were to lead to Public Law Board adjudication can serve to meet the requirements of handling a dispute `in the usual manner.' The Carrier's concern at the unanticipated rupture in the Public Law Board arrangement is easy to comprehend. At this point, however, there had been no specific claim set forth by the Organization, not had such precise dispute been placed in conference, as required. Such `conference' as occurred was concerned only with the request for information and the general nature of what might have been presented to a Public Law Board.

"Thus, the limited question posed by the Carrier (Was there violation of the Scope Rule?) cannot be said to have been handled `in the usual manner.' Indeed, it is difficult to determine how it would have been possible for this to occur, because the question seeks only an affirmation by the Board as to the Carrier's own action, already accomplished. While the question is not entirely `hypothetical,' as the Organization alleges, it does appear to seek a declaratory judgment. If there is a `dispute' here, as required by the Railway Labor Act and Circular No. 1, it is clearly one to be raised by the Organization, and such has been done in the various claims by individual employees forwarded to the Carrier in December 1987.

"The Board finds, therefore, that the Carrier's question is, at best, premature. In so finding, the Board is precluded from reviewing the arguments as to possible Scope Rule violation.

"Claim dismissed."

In Fourth Division Award No. 4677 (Marx) the majority held:

"The Board reaches the same conclusions here as in Fourth Division Award 4675.

"Claim dismissed."

Third Division Award No. 29197 (Eischen)

"The record before this Board establishes indisputably that Carrier notified the Organization, in early 1989, that the Assistant Division Engineer of Signals was designated to handle grievances and claims at the first level under Rule 4-K-1(a). The evidence further establishes that the BRS General Chairman so notified all Local Chairman on April 18, 1989. It is manifest that the claim now before us was not properly filed in accordance with those notices and Rule 4-A-1 (a). By attempting to file a claim directly, without the assistance of his Representative, Claimant assumed the risk of procedural irregularity. Moreover, the intra-organizational form used by Claimant in the first instance cannot be considered a valid claim. See Third Division Award 25245. This claim must be dismissed, pursuant to Section 153, First (i) of the Railway Labor Act, without comment on its merits."