Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 11226
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 11180-T
 2-B&O-CM-'87
 The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Raymond E. McAlpin when award was rendered.
 (Brotherhood Railway Carmen of the United States
 ( and Canada
 Parties to Dispute:
 (The Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company

 Dispute: Claim of Employes:

 1. That the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company violated the controlling agreement, specifically, Rule 144 1/2, when from the date of March 5, 1984 through October 31, 1984, and continuing, Carrier has allowed trainmen to perform work contractually accruing to the carmen craft, coupling air testing, and inspection, at Brooklyn Junction, New Martinsville, Virginia, Seniority Point 32, which is << part of Seniority Point 32, Benwood, West Virginia.

 2. That accordingly, Carrier be ordered to immediately halt such infringement upon Carmen's work at this location, and subsequently be ordered to compensate claimants herein for all time lost as a result of such infringement, as designated by original claim under date of May 3, 1984, continuing violations designated by letters under dates of June 28, 1984, August 22, 1984, September 24, 1984, October 12, 1984 and November 8, 1984, attached herewith.

 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 employes 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.

The Organization filed a Claim originally on behalf of 13_Carmen for work allegedly per-formed by Trainmen at the Carrier's Brooklyn Junction facility. Brooklyn Junction is part of the Carrier's Benwood, West Virginia, Seniority Point. This Claim was subsequently modified in a letter dated November 22, 1985. The Organization claimed 36 Claimants were involved, which is the entire Benwood, West Virginia, Seniority Roster. The Claim alleges a violation of Rule 144 1/2:
 Form 1 Page 2

 Award No. 11226
 Docket No. 11180-T
 2-B&O-CM-'87

 "(Established by Mediation Agreement Case No. A-7030, September 25, 1964)

 Coupling, Inspection and Testing.

 (a) In yards or terminals where carmen in the service of the Carrier operating or servicing the train are employed and are on duty in the departure yard, coach yard or passenger terminal from which trains depart, such inspecting and testing of air brakes and appurtenances on trains as is required by the Carrier in the departure yard, coach yard, or passenger terminal, and the related coupling of air, signal and steam hose incidental to such inspection, shall be performed by the carmen.

 (b) This rule shall not apply to coupling of air hose between locomotive and the first car of an outbound train; between the caboose and the last car of an outbound train or between the last car in a 'double-over' and the first car standing in the track upon which the outbound train is made up.

 (Established by Mediation Agreement,
 Case No. A-9699, December 4, 1975)

 (c) If as of July 1, 1974 a railroad had carmen assigned to a shift at a departure yard, coach yard or passenger terminal from which trains depart, who performed the work set forth in this rule, it may not discontinue the performance of such work by carmen if discontinued in the interim, unless there is not a sufficient amount of such work to justify employing a carrnan.
(d) If as of December 1, 1975 a railroad has a regular practice of using a carman or carmen not assigned to a departure yard, coach yard or passenger terminal from which trains depart to perform all or substantially all of the work set forth in this rule during a shift at such yard or terminal, it may not discontinue use of a carman or carmen to perform substantially all such work during that shift unless there is not sufficient work to justify employing a carman.
 Form 1 Award No. 11226
 Page 3 Docket No. 11180-T
 2-B&O-CM-'87






1984, and continuing through April 13, 1984. Again, the Claim was subse
 quently modified for occurrences beginning March 5, 1984 through October 31,
 1984. In its initial letter of Claim, the organization noted that this is a
 continuing violation, which is occurring on a daily basis until resolved.

 The Carrier raised a number of threshold issues including the vagueness of the Claim, the additional Claimants, time being added to the Claim during its handling, and that the Organization originally claimed a violation of Rule 144 1/2, but on May 28, 1985, it also claimed an Article 2, Sections 1, 2, 3 violation. With respect to the vagueness of the Claim, the Carrier stated it does not show the specific work performed, the Claimants are not proper, Claim dates are different from point to point during the handling, and this results in a combination of Claims. The Board finds the Claim does sufficiently indicate the work in question to meet the specificity test required by the Controlling Agreement. The Carrier was well aware of what work was in question. This is not to say the volume of work may not be held in question later on. Regarding the Claimants not being proper, that will be addressed later in this Award. With respect to the Claim dates being different, the Organization noted in its original Claim that this was a continuing violation and, as such, until the Claim left the property, this is appropriate. This also applies to the argument concerning the combination of Claims. With
 Form 1 Award No. 11226
 Page 4 Docket No. 11180-T
 2-B&O-CM-'87

 respect to the Organization's letter of November 22, 1985, which attempted to Iwo
 include the entire Seniority Roster in this Claim, the Board finds this was
 not handled on the property and, therefore, is not admissible. With respect
 to the Organization in its May 28, 1985 letter claiming violations of Article
 2, Sections 1, 2, and 3, the Board likewise finds that this is not a proper
 amendment of the Claim and will not consider violations under this Section of
 the Controlling Agreement. Therefore, the Claim will proceed on its merits.
 The criteria that has been established by this Board through numerous
 Awards in order for the Organization to prove its point is as follows: 1. Are
 there Carmen on duty? 2. Was the train made up in the yard or terminal? 3.
 Did the train depart from the yard or terminal? Clearly, in the instances
 cited by the Organization, the Carrier did not argue that Points 2 and 3 of
 the above criteria were not met. The remaining criteria is, "Was there a car
 man on duty?"
 It is unrefuted that no Carmen have been employed at Brooklyn Junc
 tion since 1972, and, since at least that time, train crews have performed the
 disputed work at that location with one exception. The organization contends
 that a Carman from Benwood reports to Brooklyn Junction on a daily basis on
 the first shift to inspect the Mobay District Run. While the Carrier denied
 that a Carman reports to Brooklyn Junction on a daily basis, it did not dis
 pute the assertion altogether. The Organization also stated that Brooklyn
 Junction is part of the Benwood seniority point and that there is enough work
 to employ at least one Carman there.
 During conference on the property, the General Chairman made a
 request for a joint check which was denied by the Carrier on the basis Rule
 144 1/2 limits the locations subject to joint check requests. According to
 the Carrier, those locations are the points where Carmen are currently
 employed and on duty or where the Carrier had Carmen performing the work of
 coupling, testing and inspecting, as of July 1, 1974, in reference to para
 graph (c), or as of December 1,1975, in reference to paragraphs (d) and (e).
 Upon complete review of the evidence, the Board finds that the Organi
 zation has not met its burden of proof which requires a demonstration that
 enough work was present in order to justify the permanent assignment of a Car
 man. As noted above, for an undisclosed period of time the Carrier has en
 gaged in a regular practice of having a Carman employed at Benwood inspect the
 Mobay District Run at Brooklyn Junction. No other work was identified by the
 Organization. Had the Organization established that this practice was in
 effect on or before December 1, 1975, in the Board's view, the Carrier would
 have been obligated to grant the General Chairman's request to undertake a
 joint check of the work done at Brooklyn Junction pursuant to Rule 144 1/2
 (f). Inasmuch as the organization did not even contend that such practice was
 in existence as of December 1, 1975, it failed to satisfy the burden of proof
 required to establish a violation of Rule 144 1/2 (f). Therefore, the Board
 has no alternative but to deny the Claim.
 Form 1 Award No. 11226
 Page 5 Docket No. 11180-T
 2-B&O-CM-'87




                          By Order of Second Division


                  01


Attest:
        Nancy J.rer - Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 18th day of March 1987.