The proper rate of compensation for time not worked is the pro rata rate."

AWARD 3410:-"* * * The proper rate of compensation for work not performed is the pro rata rate."

AWARD 3444·.-"* * * The claim as presented for electrician J. W. Benton requests compensation for the work lost at the overtime rate. The overtime rule has no application in this case, so we, therefore, order the carrier to compensate Mr. Benton for 12 hours lost to him because of the improper assignment of his work, at the pro rata rate."

See also Awards 3256, 3259, 3272 and others of the Second Division, as well as Award 3193 and numerous others of the Third Division, National Railroad Adjustment Board.

Carrier's position may be summarized as follows:

1. The blanket claim of the organization is vague, indefinite and lacking in specificity.

2. Rule 48 (a) of the agreement does not contain provision for penalty.

3. Carrier's available records indicate a need for the number of men carried on the extra list.

4. The organization's claim for punitive rate is not supported by the agreement.

5. Awards of the National Railroad Adjustment Board support carrier's position.

All data in connection with this dispute have been made known or available to the organization during conference or otherwise.

Carrier respectfully submits that the claim is without merit and should be dismissed or denied.

FINDINGS: The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that:

The carrier or carriers and the employe or employes involved in this -dispute are respectively carrier and employe within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 1934.

This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.

Parties to said dispute were given due notice of hearing thereon.

The claim, as it comes to this Board, is stated in the caption. However, as first presented on the property, it read:

"Claim is herewith presented in behalf of available extra board

car inspectors, if none available on a' given date, then this claim for such date is presented in behalf of the available car inspectors on the car inspectors overtime board . . ."

To the original claim the carrier responded as follows:

"Please refer to yours of February 11, 1961 presenting blanket claim for extra board car inspectors and/or regular car inspectors on the yard overtime list for eight hours at the applicable rate of pay, for each date in excess of eight (8) car inspectors were used on the extra board.

"This claim can not be considered until specfic cases are furnished indicating dates, names, etc."

The organization's response to the carrier's initial rejection was as follows:

"It is noted that your basis for denial of our claim is based upon your allegation that the names of claimants and dates of violations are not shown. We desire to point out to you that at the time this claim was presented (February 11, 1961) the violation was still in progress, in fact, not until April 12, 1961 did the violation cease.

"Therefore, it was not possible at the time of the original presentation of this claim, to name all the claimants and dates of violations. Your attention is directed to the fact that this is a continuing claim. Since the carrier did cease to violate the agreement effective April 12, 1961, we are now in a position to furnish you with the names of claimants and dates of violation in this case."

It will thus be seen that we are confronted with contentions that the claim is blanket and indefinite and that it could not be otherwise because it was continuing in character, notwithstanding that Article V, Section 1(a) of the National Agreement of August 21, 1954, specifically requires that, "All claims or grievances must be presented by or on behalf of the employe involved."

We are not unmindful of the fact that there is authority for the proposition that it is not always necessary that the claimant or claimants be identified by name. In Award No. 2195 it was held that the claim was sufficient where a specified number of designated groups of Employes were improperly furloughed on a given date, the Board observing that a ministerial examination of the available records would have disclosed the names of those entitled to be paid. That Award cannot be considered as a controlling precedent in the instant case, however, where no date when the violation occurred is fixed, even the number of employes affected is not disclosed, and the groups of Employes involved are referred to in the alternative. Neither is it any answer to say that the claim was a continuing one. A continuing claim may be proper where a specific violation is definitely charged, the means of identifying the claimants is adequately disclosed and the violation has not come to an end, but such is not the situation here.

Mindful of the lack of uniformity in the numerous awards dealing with the sufficiency of claims, we are reluctant to add to the confusion by extending the application of Award No. 2195 beyond its terms. We therefore hold that the claim in the instant case is insufficient to invoke the jurisdiction of this Board. See: Awards Nos. 3576 and 4166.

AWARD